|
reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 07:22 AM by jtma508
|
I can't understand --- especially from the people on ATS --- why any distinction is made between Democrtats and Republicans. Everyone in government
that is any position of authority is reeled in by the PTB. Doesn't matter what 'party affiliation' you derclare. If you're in 'a position'
tehy work to own you. The longer you are in your job (the longer your tenure) tyhe more time they have to get to you. There is no two-party system
people. Wake up.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 08:24 AM by grover
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 08:45 AM by Animal
|
my call on this:
it is not intended to start a war, and it is not intended to gave bush the authority to go to war.
this could very well be an attempt to derail an attempt by the administration to drag the usa into war with iran (at israel's behest).
as you yourself posted several of the pieces of this non-bonding legislation refer back to sanctions from the mid-90s.
to b sure i will have to dig it up and read it but my impression would be that this is a piece of legislation intended to 'do something' to 'reign
in' iran without using force. it is an attempt to show that the situation can be delt with differently than the bush MO which is bombing and
occupying.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 08:55 AM by Animal
|
yes after reading the bill i am convinced that the intention is to take action against iran that DOES NOT include war.
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. link
this quote is the entire statement of 'what should be done' please note the lack of any suggestion of war. also note the continued use of political,
economic, and diplomatic force to achieve the goal of preventing iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
my opinion is this: these representatives DO NOT want to go down the path of iraq again, especially so close to an election. whats more i doubt they
believe the usa could be successful in a military venture against iran. i assume that they are taking this step to show they action other than war can
be taken to achieve the desired goals.
[edit on 24-6-2008 by Animal]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 10:15 AM by FewWorldOrder
|
Jtma508 and The Major are correct, imo. The illusion of a two-party system is alive and well. As I've said before, the U.S. operates under one Party,
The Profit-Party.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 11:05 AM by Maxmars
|
I concur that partisanship is an illusion.
Nevertheless, we should resist any international lobby being allowed to exercise such influence within our government. There MUST be an accounting of
those who simply disregard loyalty to the people of the nation.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 11:52 AM by imd12c4funn
|
taking in the fact that congress is heavily invested with defense contractors and suppliers, i.e. conflicting interests,
www.youtube.com...
as well as the 4 Billion spent on election campaigns since 2004, Interest Lobbyists (from 16,000 to 34,000), in the 21st Century, , ultimately
exploding by 878% from 1996 to 2006, contributing enormously with expectations of gains, earmarks , i.e. (BRIBES), i meant "campaign
funds"...etc...
www.youtube.com...
The representation of Citizens is a non-issue it seems. Who are we to demand our representatives to concern themselves with our expectations? How
dare we interfere with agendas that benefit the People rather than the personal greed corrupting most District Reps and Senators, when sucking the war
tit of the defense catering preemptive river "WAR" with it's monetary allocations already cresting at flood stage with it's massive current of
Federal Reserve Notes filling pockets everywhere other than our citizens and infrastructure. Am I exaggerating?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 02:18 PM by Animal
|
sorry as corrupt as the government obviously is i do not buy the idea that it is entirely corrupt. there are too many people involved for a complete
conspiracy. as such i do believe there is a difference between members of differing parties.
sitting around being defeated and resigned will do nothing to create change. the largest problem with the usa's political system is the # of people
that do nothing but sit on the outside looking in and complaining.
besides the conversation has shifted, almost completely, from the topic in the OP.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 03:05 PM by imd12c4funn
|
so what exactly are you doing that is proactive?
Writing my congressman will be my 1st step. At the local level, I intend to participate at City Counsel meetings and eventually secure a seat for
myself. My goal is to have a year and a half in, as a stepping stone for when I pass the Bar. I figure in 8 years, I will run for State Attorney
General or District Representative.
By 2020, I will go after a Senate seat, and once in, keep the seat at any and all cost. If this includes accepting special interests campaign
donations, with the good ol' boy back slap when re-elected, so be it. This will at least allow me to be on the rewarded side of the game. And most
importantly, to be in the game at all.
I think this is the best way to initiate change.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 04:17 PM by Animal
|
reply to post by imd12c4funn
one thing i would suggest is looking up and joining your local democratic / republican / green / libertarian party. really i would suggest joining
democratic / republican as there you will have the most sway. there are surprisingly few people who join and participate in the party and it is a very
good way to influence those who represent you. it is also a very good way to get 'direct' contact with them.
i call and write when ever an issue is brought to my attention that i feels like merits a call or letter. happily my representatives do alright in my
book, but we are lucky here in northern NM.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 05:53 PM by Keyhole
|
Originally posted by grover
If the Iraq resolution is any indicator bush minor could easily claim that this gives him the authority to attack Iran.
Actually, there is one line in there where they are trying to prevent Bush from getting any ideas along those lines.
The last line in the CONCURRENT RESOLUTION and just above Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
H. Con. Res. 362:
Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran:
This might be there way of trying to tie Bush's warmongering hands.
Originally posted by grover
I read the article but I couldn't find who is authoring this bill.
From the link above.
Bill Status
Introduced: May 22, 2008
Sponsor: Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Status: Introduced
Go to Bill Status Page
You are viewing the following version of this bill:
Introduced in House: This is the original text of the bill as it was written by its sponsor and submitted to the House for
consideration.
[edit on 6/24/2008 by Keyhole]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 08:55 PM by Pawnhaus
|
Assuming this legislation would become law, how could it not be construed as an act of war, and also I believe, an international war crime if carried
out unsanctioned by the UN? (Paragraph 3)
A modicum of common sense would inform those half alive during the last 75 years that anyone suggesting embargo/blockade which further combines the
Bush administration, the Iranians, and the US Military in the Persian Gulf - seriously needs to have their head examined.
Ahh, screw it. GO for it Dems and GOP!! Whoopie………..  
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 11:16 AM by FewWorldOrder
|
From the OP's link,
 "The most strongly worded section of the legislation is article three, which states: "Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress - (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 [among other things], prohibiting
the export to Iran of all 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." Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Emphasis mine in above quote.
To me, this legislation is exactly an authorization to provoke a War.
[edit on 25-6-2008 by FewWorldOrder]
[edit on 25-6-2008 by FewWorldOrder]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 12:12 PM by Animal
|
reply to post by FewWorldOrder
I think that is pushing it to an extreme, but that is my opinion as this is yours.
Sanctions and restricted movement is a very serious action, one we see breed conflict all over the world. Still it is not necessarily a move towards
war, it could, IMO be a move to show very strict and debilitating SANCTIONS. Sanctions imposed to FORCE the kind of response the world is demanding of
Iran in a manner that does NOT require war.
It is my opinion that this is the appropriate kind of measures to be taken in such a situation. It is sure a lot more honorable than 'Shock and
Awe'.
Though your point that such sanctions could act as a provocation I believe whole heartedly that despite the dangers working to accomplish
geo-political objectives should be conducted with War and violence as a last result.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 01:23 PM by Johnmike
|
Originally posted by grover
It looks like the neo-con armchair war mongers aren't down for the count yet.
Grover, isn't there a Democratic majority in Congress? And didn't they vote for it?
But aside from a tiny bit of political bias, this thread is a good thing. Just goes to show you that the Democrats never act how they promise
in their rhetoric, and that no matter the party, our Congress is at it again.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 01:25 PM by Johnmike
|
Originally posted by FewWorldOrder
From the OP's link,
"The most strongly worded section of the legislation is article three, which states: "Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress - (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 [among other things], prohibiting
the export to Iran of all 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." Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Emphasis mine in above quote.
To me, this legislation is exactly an authorization to provoke a War.
I had to quote this because of how perfect and to the point this is.
This is how we got attacked during World War II.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 01:47 PM by Animal
|
Originally posted by Johnmike
This is how we got attacked during World War II.
hey could you please elaborate on this? Thank you not knowing what you are speaking about I am unable to understand your point.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 07:15 PM by FewWorldOrder
|
reply to post by Animal
I'll give it a try. I stumbled on this awhile back, seems like it's genuine information, as far as I know.
"On October 7, 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence submitted a memo to Navy Captains Walter Anderson
and Dudley Knox (whose endorsement is included in the following scans). Captains Anderson and Knox were two of President Roosevelt's most trusted
military advisors.
The memo, scanned below, detailed an 8 step plan to provoke Japan into attacking the United States. President Roosevelt, over the course of 1941,
implemented all 8 of the recommendations contained in the McCollum memo. Following the eighth provocation, Japan attacked. The public was told that it
was a complete surprise, an "intelligence failure", and America entered World War Two."
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 10:00 AM by TheRedneck
|
reply to post by FewWorldOrder
prohibiting the export to Iran of all 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. Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
We have three things mentioned here that are 'demanded' of the Bushident.
"prohibiting the export to Iran of all petroleum products" - er, I thought Iran exported oil products. Did we swap countries while I was
asleep?
"imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran" - Can anyone say
'blockade'? Last time I checked, a blockade was an act of war..
"prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program" - So, we're
going to extend the blockade to movement of citizens as well? Sounds to me like this is an open declaration of war, with some fancy wording to make it
easier to swallow. Just a spoonful of sugar... makes the medicine go down... the medicine go down, the medicine go down...
TheRedneck
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 11:04 AM by FewWorldOrder
|
reply to post by TheRedneck
"prohibiting the export to Iran of all petroleum products" - er, I thought Iran exported oil products. Did we swap countries while I
was asleep?
I had thought the same thing, but apparently they do not have sufficient refining capacity to meet their needs. The following info is over a year
old, though I think it's still fairly accurate.
At first glance, it might seem that a country with the second-largest gas and oil reserves in the world has nothing to worry about. But as the
report notes, 85 percent of Iran's revenue comes from the sale of oil abroad. At the same time, Iran imports most of the refined products it uses,
like gasoline. Iran consumes half a million barrels of petroleum products per day, of which 40 percent is imported,...
www.weeklystandard.com...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
