Advertisement
Ron Paul is the one vote against...
www.google.com/hostednews...dQD98TU3QO0
House condemns Tehran crackdown on protesters
WASHINGTON (AP) — In the strongest message yet from the U.S. government, the House voted 405-1 Friday to condemn Tehran's crackdown on demonstrators and the government's interference with Internet and cell phone communications.
The resolution was initiated by Republicans as a veiled criticism of President Barack Obama, who has been reluctant to criticize Tehran's handling of disputed elections that left hard-liner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power.
Rep. Mike Pence, who co-sponsored the resolution, said he disagrees with the administration that it must not meddle in Iran's affairs.
"When Ronald Reagan went before the Brandenburg Gate, he did not say Mr. (Mikhail) Gorbachev, that wall is none of our business," said Pence, R-Ind., of President Reagan's famous exhortation to the Soviet leader to "tear down that wall."
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs denied that Obama has failed to speak out fiercely enough and said the resolution "is very consistent" with the message Obama has been sending this week.
Democrats, who are quick to voice their support for Israel anytime the Jewish state is seen as under siege, easily agreed to push through the mildly worded resolution.
Rep. Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and co-sponsor of the resolution, said "it is not for us to decide who should run Iran, much less determine the real winner of the June 12 election.
"But we must reaffirm our strong belief that the Iranian people have a fundamental right to express their views about the future of their country freely and without intimidation," added Berman, D-Calif.
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., have proposed a similar measure in the Senate.
The Senate planned to vote as early as Friday on the measure, as well as a separate resolution by Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., that condemns restrictions on the press in Iran.
The policy statement expresses support for "all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and rule of law" and affirms "the importance of democratic and fair elections."
It also condemns "the ongoing violence" by the government and pro-government militias against demonstrators, as well as government "suppression of independent electronic communications through interference with the Internet and cell phones."
Congress — particularly the 435-member House — frequently weighs in on foreign policy matters, when a similar message from the State Department or the White House would be considered confrontational. Such resolutions have no practical effect other than to express the opinion of lawmakers and try to influence the administration in power at the time.
The legislative branch's say so in foreign affairs has receded over time, the residue of growing executive branch power.
Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas libertarian, cast the sole opposing vote because he said it wasn't the House's place to judge "events thousands of miles away about which we know very little."
Obama, whose goal is to engage Tehran in the hopes of blunting its perceived ambition of a nuclear weapon, has stayed mostly neutral on the election dispute, talking in parsed, measured terms, about the aspirations of the Iranian people to have their voices heard.
"I think the president has been clear on what he believes ," Gibbs said Friday. "And I will say, as the president has said, we're not going to be used as political foils and political footballs in a debate that is happening in Iran. There are many people in the leadership that would love us to get involved and would love to trot out the same old foils they've used for years. That's what they would love to do."
Nevertheless, he said that "obviously, we welcome the resolution."
Obama told CNBC this week that "when you've got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting and they're having to be scattered through violence and gun shots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election."
Obama also said that it was "not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling."
Iranians have long blamed the CIA for helping topple the elected government of Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953 and replacing him with the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
www.google.com/hostednews...dQD98TU3QO0
House condemns Tehran crackdown on protesters
WASHINGTON (AP) — In the strongest message yet from the U.S. government, the House voted 405-1 Friday to condemn Tehran's crackdown on demonstrators and the government's interference with Internet and cell phone communications.
The resolution was initiated by Republicans as a veiled criticism of President Barack Obama, who has been reluctant to criticize Tehran's handling of disputed elections that left hard-liner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power.
Rep. Mike Pence, who co-sponsored the resolution, said he disagrees with the administration that it must not meddle in Iran's affairs.
"When Ronald Reagan went before the Brandenburg Gate, he did not say Mr. (Mikhail) Gorbachev, that wall is none of our business," said Pence, R-Ind., of President Reagan's famous exhortation to the Soviet leader to "tear down that wall."
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs denied that Obama has failed to speak out fiercely enough and said the resolution "is very consistent" with the message Obama has been sending this week.
Democrats, who are quick to voice their support for Israel anytime the Jewish state is seen as under siege, easily agreed to push through the mildly worded resolution.
Rep. Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and co-sponsor of the resolution, said "it is not for us to decide who should run Iran, much less determine the real winner of the June 12 election.
"But we must reaffirm our strong belief that the Iranian people have a fundamental right to express their views about the future of their country freely and without intimidation," added Berman, D-Calif.
Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., have proposed a similar measure in the Senate.
The Senate planned to vote as early as Friday on the measure, as well as a separate resolution by Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., that condemns restrictions on the press in Iran.
The policy statement expresses support for "all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and rule of law" and affirms "the importance of democratic and fair elections."
It also condemns "the ongoing violence" by the government and pro-government militias against demonstrators, as well as government "suppression of independent electronic communications through interference with the Internet and cell phones."
Congress — particularly the 435-member House — frequently weighs in on foreign policy matters, when a similar message from the State Department or the White House would be considered confrontational. Such resolutions have no practical effect other than to express the opinion of lawmakers and try to influence the administration in power at the time.
The legislative branch's say so in foreign affairs has receded over time, the residue of growing executive branch power.
Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas libertarian, cast the sole opposing vote because he said it wasn't the House's place to judge "events thousands of miles away about which we know very little."
Obama, whose goal is to engage Tehran in the hopes of blunting its perceived ambition of a nuclear weapon, has stayed mostly neutral on the election dispute, talking in parsed, measured terms, about the aspirations of the Iranian people to have their voices heard.
"I think the president has been clear on what he believes ," Gibbs said Friday. "And I will say, as the president has said, we're not going to be used as political foils and political footballs in a debate that is happening in Iran. There are many people in the leadership that would love us to get involved and would love to trot out the same old foils they've used for years. That's what they would love to do."
Nevertheless, he said that "obviously, we welcome the resolution."
Obama told CNBC this week that "when you've got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting and they're having to be scattered through violence and gun shots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election."
Obama also said that it was "not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling."
Iranians have long blamed the CIA for helping topple the elected government of Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953 and replacing him with the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 6:03 PM"Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas libertarian, cast the sole opposing vote because he said it wasn't the House's place to judge "events thousands of miles away about which we know very little.""
Odd, I actually agree -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 6:07 PMWhat makes you think that the US "knows very little"?
Obviously the US would have intelligence on the ground in Iran on top of all the news leaking out?
By RP's logic we should never condemn atrocities around the world because "how could we know" what's going on? -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 6:13 PM"What makes you think that the US "knows very little"? "
1. he was referring to the house
2.these situations tend to be more complex than we like to admit.
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 6:16 PMno, I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul was referring to the US "we" -- not just the House
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 6:18 PMOk, you might be right -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 7:07 PMbrent....
watch this video:
trita parsi ( president of the national iranian american council) explained it very well why the US should stuff a sock............for now.
last 1/3 of the vid. is with parsi
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/263159.../#31396275
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 7:09 PMi know the vote is largely symbolic anyways.......
-
-
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 19, 2009 - 11:01 PMHe is clueless. . .what a jerk. . -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Mon, June 22, 2009 - 11:45 PM>> He is clueless. . .what a jerk. . <<
no he isn't. this is just more political grandstanding by hacks that can't seem to pass up a chance to pander.
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 3:22 PM"By RP's logic we should never condemn atrocities around the world because "how could we know" what's going on? "
That would be consistent with RP's brand of libertarianism, which eschews all but the most necessary foreign involvement. -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 3:35 PMThe situation has changed.
# in Baharestan we saw militia with axe choping ppl like meat - blood everywhere - like butcher - Allah Akbar
# they pull away the dead into trucks - like factory - no human can do this - we beg Allah for save us
uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...00ff8137
Now is time for Obama to strengthen his statements, and work with the UN to condemn/isolate Iran. -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Thu, June 25, 2009 - 11:40 PM>> Now is time for Obama to strengthen his statements, and work with the UN to condemn/isolate Iran. <<
won't accomplish a damn thing. either we have the balls to do something or keep quiet.
-
-
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sat, June 20, 2009 - 4:52 PM<"Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas libertarian, cast the sole opposing vote because he said it wasn't the House's place to judge "events thousands of miles away about which we know very little."">
I guess Ron Paul does not have cable, aTwitter or Facebook account, 'eh?
Another reason why RP is a joke.
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sat, June 20, 2009 - 5:40 PMRon Paul would likely make the same retarded comment if N Korea lobbed a nuke at S Korea tomorrow.
The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation.
- Bertrand Russell -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sat, June 20, 2009 - 5:43 PM
I like it when someone outs themselves as the person that others pointed out that they were - vis a vie the whole "Ron Paul ROCKS/SUCKS" discussions a year and some ago...
He's a mess. And, the Reps are now doing the same thing with pushing Obama to become more forceful with Iran, when pretty much EVERYONE agrees that nothing that we do can help.
Now we know how the Reps would have dealt with this issue...
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sat, June 20, 2009 - 5:58 PM"Ron Paul would likely make the same retarded comment if N Korea lobbed a nuke at S Korea tomorrow. "
Not really. The big difference between the scenario you mentioned above, and what is going on in Iran, is that the later is an internal dispute, and Iran isn't attacking a US ally, or anyone, for that matter
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sat, June 20, 2009 - 6:01 PMI disagree.
Ron Paul would think that relations between N & S Korea is an internal matter as well.
I haven't heard him speak out about any tyranny in the world. (China-Tibet....etc.). It sounds like he thinks the US should never get involved anywhere in the world period. -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sun, June 21, 2009 - 2:45 AM<I haven't heard him speak out about any tyranny in the world. (China-Tibet....etc.). It sounds like he thinks the US should never get involved anywhere in the world period.>
Yep, he and cDubity. -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sun, June 21, 2009 - 8:01 AMNorth Korea: “Sanity” at the Brink By Michael Parenti
Posted on June 20, 2009 by dandelionsalad
Dandelion Salad
Bookmark and Share
By Michael Parenti
ICH
June 20, 2009 “Commondreams“
Nations that chart a self-defining course, seeking to use their land, labor, natural resources, and markets as they see fit, free from the smothering embrace of the US corporate global order, frequently become a target of defamation. Their leaders often have their moral sanity called into question by US officials and US media, as has been the case at one time or another with Castro, Noriega, Ortega, Qaddafi, Aristide, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, and others.
So it comes as no surprise that the rulers of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) have been routinely described as mentally unbalanced by our policymakers and pundits. Senior Defense Department officials refer to the DPRK as a country “not of this planet,” led by “dysfunctional” autocrats. One government official, quoted in the New York Times, wondered aloud “if they are really totally crazy.” The New Yorker magazine called them “balmy,” and late-night TV host David Letterman got into the act by labeling Kim Jong-il a “madman maniac.”
To be sure, there are things about the DPRK that one might wonder about, including its dynastic leadership system, its highly dictatorial one-party rule, and the chaos that seems implanted in the heart of its “planned” economy.
But in its much advertised effort to become a nuclear power, North Korea is actually displaying more sanity than first meets the eye. The Pyongyang leadership seems to know something about US global policy that our own policymakers and pundits have overlooked. In a word, the United States has never attacked or invaded any nation that has a nuclear arsenal.
The countries directly battered by US military actions in recent decades (Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, then again Iraq), along with numerous other states that have been threatened at one time or another for being “anti-American” or “anti-West” (Iran, Cuba, South Yemen, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea, and others) have one thing in common: not one of them has wielded a nuclear deterrence–until now.
Let us provide a little background. Put aside the entire Korean War (1950-53) in which US aerial power destroyed most of the DPRK’s infrastructure and tens of thousands of its civilians. Consider more recent events. In the jingoist tide that followed the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President George W. Bush claimed the right to initiate any military action against any “terrorist” nation, organization, or individual of his choosing. Such a claim to arbitrary power–in violation of international law, the UN charter, and the US Constitution–transformed the president into something of an absolute monarch who could exercise life and death power over any quarter of the Earth. Needless to say, numerous nations–the DPRK among them–were considerably discomforted by the US president’s elevation to King of the Planet.
It was only in 2008 that President Bush finally removed North Korea from a list of states that allegedly sponsor terrorism. But there remains another more devilishly disquieting hit list that Pyongyang recalls. In December 2001, two months after 9/11, Vice President Dick Cheney referred chillingly to “forty or fifty countries” that might need military disciplining. A month later in his 2002 State of the Union message, President Bush pruned the list down to three especially dangerous culprits: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, who, he said, composed an “axis of evil.”
It was a curious lumping together of three nations that had little in common. In Iraq the leadership was secular, in Iran it was a near Islamic theocracy. And far from being allies, the two countries were serious enemies. Meanwhile the DPRK, had no historical, cultural, or geographical links to either Iraq or Iran. But it could witness what was happening.
The first to get hit was Iraq, nation #1 on the short list of accused evil doers. Before the 2003 US invasion, Iraq had the highest standard of living in the Middle East. But years of war, sanctions, and occupation reduced the country to shambles, its infrastructure shattered and much of its population drenched in blood and misery.
Were it not that Iraq has proven to be such a costly venture, the United States long ago would have been moving against Iran, #2 on the axis-of-evil hit list. As we might expect, Iranian president Mahmoud Amadinijad has been diagnosed in the US media as “dangerously unstable.” The Pentagon has announced that thousands of key sites in Iran have been mapped and targeted for aerial attack. All sorts of threats have been directed against Tehran for having pursued an enriched uranium program–which every nation in the world has a right to do. And on a recent Sunday TV program, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that the United States might undertake a “first strike” against Iran to prevent its nuclear weapons development.
Rather than passively await its fate sitting in Washington’s crosshairs, nation #3 on the US hit list is trying to pack a deterrence. The DPRK’s attempt at self-defense is characterized in US official circles and US media as wild aggression. Secretary Clinton warned that the United States would not be “blackmailed by North Korea.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates fulminated, “We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in Asia–or on us.” The DPRK’s nuclear program, Gates warns, is a “harbinger of a dark future.”
President Obama condemned North Korea’s “belligerent provocative behavior” as posing a “grave threat.” In June 2009, the UN Security Council unanimously passed a US-sponsored resolution ratcheting up the financial, trade, and military sanctions against the DPRK, a nation already hard hit by sanctions. In response to the Security Council’s action, Kim Jong-il’s government announced it would no longer “even think about giving up its nuclear weapons” and would enlarge its efforts to produce more of them.
In his earlier Cairo speech Obama stated, “No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.” But that is exactly what the United States is trying to do in regard to a benighted North Korea–and Iran. Physicist and political writer Manuel Garcia, Jr., observes that Washington’s policy “is to encourage other nations to abide by the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty–and renounce nuclear weapons–while exempting itself.” Others must disarm so that Washington may more easily rule over them, Garcia concludes.
US leaders still refuse to give any guarantee that they will not try to topple Pyongyang’s communist government. There is talk of putting the DPRK back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, though Secretary Clinton admits that evidence is wanting to support such a designation.
From its lonely and precarious perch the North cannot help feeling vulnerable. Consider the intimidating military threat it faces. The DPRK’s outdated and ill-equipped army is no match for the conventional forces of the United States, South Korea, and Japan. The United States maintains a large attack base in South Korea. As Paul Sack reminds us in a recent correspondence to the New York Times, at least once a year the US military conducts joint exercises with South Korean forces, practicing a land invasion of the DPRK. The US Air Force maintains a “nuclear umbrella” over South Korea with nuclear arsenals in Okinawa, Guam, and Hawaii. Japan not only says it can produce nuclear bombs within a year, it seems increasingly willing to do so. And the newly installed leadership in South Korea is showing itself to be anything but friendly toward Pyongyang.
The DPRK’s nuclear arsenal is a two-edged sword. It can deter attack or invite attack. It may cause US officials to think twice before cinching a tighter knot around the North, or it may cause them to move aggressively toward a confrontation that no one really wants.
After years of encirclement and repeated rebuffs from Washington, years of threat, isolation, and demonization, the Pyongyang leaders are convinced that the best way to resist superpower attack and domination is by developing a nuclear arsenal. It does not really sound so crazy. As already mentioned, the United States does not invade countries that are armed with long-range nuclear missiles (at least not thus far).
Having been pushed to the brink for so long, the North Koreans are now taking a gamble, upping the ante, pursuing an arguably “sane” deterrence policy in the otherwise insane world configured by an overweening and voracious empire.
Michael Parenti’s recent books include: Contrary Notions: The Michael Parenti Reader (City Lights); Democracy for the Few, 8th ed. (Wadsworth); and God and His Demons (Prometheus Books, forthcoming). For further information, visit his website: www.michaelparenti.org.
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sun, June 21, 2009 - 8:20 AMah yes, Parenti the stalinist apologist.
Millions starve while Dear Leader does nothing
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sun, June 21, 2009 - 4:26 PM<Millions starve while Dear Leader does nothing>
Well, that's also because of the collective punishment that we put on the average N. Korean. A war crime, right? -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 3:27 PM
"Well, that's also because of the collective punishment that we put on the average N. Korean. A war crime, right?"
Correct. -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Thu, June 25, 2009 - 10:40 PMno sorry steven. N Korea's misery lies solely at the feet of Dear Leader
-
-
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sun, June 21, 2009 - 10:32 AM"So it comes as no surprise that the rulers of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) have been routinely described as mentally unbalanced by our policymakers and pundits. Senior Defense Department officials refer to the DPRK as a country “not of this planet,” led by “dysfunctional” autocrats. One government official, quoted in the New York Times, wondered aloud “if they are really totally crazy.” The New Yorker magazine called them “balmy,” and late-night TV host David Letterman got into the act by labeling Kim Jong-il a “madman maniac.” "
lol, just lol -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sun, June 21, 2009 - 10:44 AMpoor Dear Leader gets such a bum rap
lmao -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sun, June 21, 2009 - 10:51 AMUS Congress betrays their stupidity once again.
Nothing good could possible come of this empty gesture. If Ahmad dinnerjacket retains the presidency it will hurt not help any possibly of improving our relations with Iran. In the interim it helps the cause of those who want to portray the demonstrations as being western orchestrated or inspired.
Can ANYONE explain how this will help the situation? -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sun, June 21, 2009 - 10:55 AMit doesn't. It's nothing more than an empty gesture that muddies the water
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sun, June 21, 2009 - 11:06 AMIran always plays the Blame the Great Satan card no matter what.
the condemnation was over the violent crackdown by Iranian security forces. -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 4:15 PM"Iran always plays the Blame the Great Satan card no matter what. "
I agree, That's one reason I didn't think it unreasonable for Obama to not immediately condemn the situation, since the Iranian government could have just used that as an excuse for cracking down, claiming the protests were an American plot.
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 3:50 PM"Nothing good could possible come of this empty gesture."
It makes them feel good about themselves while doing substantively nothing, like when the Berkeley City Council issues their resolutions about US foreign policy.
-
-
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 3:49 PM"President George W. Bush claimed the right to initiate any military action against any “terrorist” nation, organization, or individual of his choosing. Such a claim to arbitrary power–in violation of international law, the UN charter, and the US Constitution"
Show me where in the Constitution there's a prohibition on attacking terrorists -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 7:56 AMRon says:
"Show me where in the Constitution there's a prohibition on attacking terrorists "
Well Ron, Some insist that the Constitutional power to wage war begins with Congress having the power to declare war and then passes to the president to wage it. Which to my mind makes perfect since since the president is the top law enforcement officer in the nation under the Constitution and he must enforce the laws the Congress passes.
When the president steps around the Congress and wages war without congressional authority, they should either condone it by funding it or cut the president off withing the time allotted. I forget whether it's 60 days ( High School civics class was a long time ago).
So I think that the power of the president to wage war on any one at all is dependent on a Congressional declaration of war. -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 8:43 AM"Some insist that the Constitutional power to wage war begins with Congress having the power to declare war"
Attacking terrorists is attacking criminals, not waging war. Waging war is against a country, not criminals, and since Bush got congressional authority for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, he followed the Constitution in those matters. -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 12:58 PM<<<Attacking terrorists is attacking criminals, not waging war. >>
The U.S. got involved in its first few overseas wars with a gang of criminals (who were, by any objective standard, terrorists) known as the Barbary Pirates-
www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ary.htm
If we'd have given bin Laden a giant dose of the same treatment, our problems in that part of the world would now be halved.
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 5:52 PM<Attacking terrorists is attacking criminals, not waging war. Waging war is against a country, not criminals, and since Bush got congressional authority...>
Well, some argue about what constitutes this "congressional authority". The constitution calls for one thing, Bush got something else...
-
-
-
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Tue, June 23, 2009 - 1:06 AM>Yep, he and cDubity.
Yes, we feel the US shouldn't have bases in dozens of nations and run around invading nations. Call us "isolationists" but we think theres more constructive ways to engage with other nations than bombing them. -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 6:09 PM<Yes, we feel the US shouldn't have bases in dozens of nations and run around invading nations. Call us "isolationists" but we think theres more constructive ways to engage with other nations than bombing them.>
This is not about "bombing them", this is about a non-binding anything condemnation. That's it.
<Now is time for Obama to strengthen his statements, and work with the UN to condemn/isolate Iran.>
Based upon the new reports, perhaps you are right.
<<"I want to see him demanding a full recount. "
<What exactly would that accomplish? We have zero leverage on their government in their internal affairs, and they would just use that as a pretext for claiming that this was all a CIA plot.>
Exactly. How this incredibly simple idea does not enter the brains of the more reflexive here, I do not know.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 8:06 AMIf I understand Ron Paul correctly, he douse not want to do anything outside of the US, I'm not saying there is anything wrong here.
Just stating what I believe the man to mean.
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sun, June 21, 2009 - 12:58 PMHere's more of what he said. While I disagree with him, he makes a pretty solid argument, and I respect him because his integrity and honesty is simply leaps and bounds above most politicians.
"I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives."
....
"Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made."
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009...s.php -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sun, June 21, 2009 - 1:14 PMI agree with ron paul on this one.....
It is one thing what WE think is the best for the Iranian opposition..........and an other ...what the leaders of the Iranian opposition think is the best for them.
The White House might be very well in contact with Mousavi and other opposition leaders......and they might told the WH to stay under the radar for now.
lets not forget........Ahmadineijad/Khamenei do have MIllions of supporters ...( interesting is that these people do not have huge counter rallies.......except if it is "demanded" by the gov.)
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sun, June 21, 2009 - 4:42 PMsounds like solid reasoning to me
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Sun, June 21, 2009 - 4:56 PM
+1 to Ron Paul on this one.
he also said,
~~~~~~~
I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.
I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.
~~~~~~~~~~ -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Mon, June 22, 2009 - 2:34 PM
I've been calling for Obama to speak out more. In particular, I want to see him demanding a full recount. That's doing the right thing without technically choosing a side.
But, I have almost changed mind. Here's the argument that convinced me.
McCain, the same guy who chanted "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran" is now calling for Obama to take a strong, vocal, stand against the Iranian government.
I'm about ready agree with Obama, and just let him do the opposite of whatever McCain says. -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Mon, June 22, 2009 - 5:13 PM<I've been calling for Obama to speak out more. In particular, I want to see him demanding a full recount. That's doing the right thing without technically choosing a side.>
There's a bigger picture here, Adam. If we get involved in ANY real degree, that'll just cause the elements in Iran who can take advantage of even this little bit of influence to make a mountain out of a molehill. I don't know if we should really get so involved in their state affairs to the degree that we are telling them what to do. A condemnation? Sure, but I don't want them telling US what to do with our elections... So, any response should be measured and reasonable while still allowing the Iranians to know that we care.
<I'm about ready agree with Obama, and just let him do the opposite of whatever McCain says.>
Exactly.
Oddly, most isolationist Reps are calling for a far stronger action on Iran... What does THAT tell you...?
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown and that is hypocracy bullshit maximus
Mon, June 22, 2009 - 5:23 PMIran Had a Democracy Before We Took It Away by
If Martin Luther King or Gandhi were alive today, this is how and what they'd be talking about......
Iran Had a Democracy Before We Took It Away by
by Chris Hedges
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
Truthdig
June 22, 2009
Iranians do not need or want us to teach them about liberty and representative government. They have long embodied this struggle. It is we who need to be taught. It was Washington that orchestrated the 1953 coup to topple Iran’s democratically elected government, the first in the Middle East, and install the compliant shah in power. It was Washington that forced Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, a man who cared as much for his country as he did for the rule of law and democracy, to spend the rest of his life under house arrest. We gave to the Iranian people the corrupt regime of the shah and his savage secret police and the primitive clerics that rose out of the swamp of the dictator’s Iran. Iranians know they once had a democracy until we took it away.
The fundamental problem in the Middle East is not a degenerate and corrupt Islam. The fundamental problem is a degenerate and corrupt Christendom. We have not brought freedom and democracy and enlightenment to the Muslim world. We have brought the opposite. We have used the iron fist of the American military to implant our oil companies in Iraq, occupy Afghanistan and ensure that the region is submissive and cowed. We have supported a government in Israel that has carried out egregious war crimes in Lebanon and Gaza and is daily stealing ever greater portions of Palestinian land. We have established a network of military bases, some the size of small cities, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, and we have secured basing rights in the Gulf states of Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. We have expanded our military operations to Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Egypt, Algeria and Yemen. And no one naively believes, except perhaps us, that we have any intention of leaving.
We are the biggest problem in the Middle East. We have through our cruelty and violence created and legitimized the Mahmoud Ahmadinejads and the Osama bin Ladens. The longer we lurch around the region dropping iron fragmentation bombs and seizing Muslim land the more these monsters, reflections of our own distorted image, will proliferate. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote that “the most significant moral characteristic of a nation is its hypocrisy.” But our hypocrisy no longer fools anyone but ourselves. It will ensure our imperial and economic collapse.
The history of modern Iran is the history of a people battling tyranny. These tyrants were almost always propped up and funded by foreign powers. This suppression and distortion of legitimate democratic movements over the decades resulted in the 1979 revolution that brought the Iranian clerics to power, unleashing another tragic cycle of Iranian resistance.
“The central story of Iran over the last 200 years has been national humiliation at the hands of foreign powers who have subjugated and looted the country,” Stephen Kinzer, the author of “All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror,” told me. “For a long time the perpetrators were the British and Russians. Beginning in 1953, the United States began taking over that role. In that year, the American and British secret services overthrew an elected government, wiped away Iranian democracy, and set the country on the path to dictatorship.”
“Then, in the 1980s, the U.S. sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, providing him with military equipment and intelligence that helped make it possible for his army to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians,” Kinzer said. “Given this history, the moral credibility of the U.S. to pose as a promoter of democracy in Iran is close to nil.
Especially ludicrous is the sight of people in Washington calling for intervention on behalf of democracy in Iran when just last year they were calling for the bombing of Iran. If they had had their way then, many of the brave protesters on the streets of Tehran today—the ones they hold up as heroes of democracy—would be dead now.”
Washington has never recovered from the loss of Iran—something our intelligence services never saw coming. The overthrow of the shah, the humiliation of the embassy hostages, the laborious piecing together of tiny shreds of paper from classified embassy documents to expose America’s venal role in thwarting democratic movements in Iran and the region, allowed the outside world to see the dark heart of the American empire. Washington has demonized Iran ever since, painting it as an irrational and barbaric country filled with primitive, religious zealots. But Iranians, as these street protests illustrate, have proved in recent years far more courageous in the defense of democracy than most Americans.
Where were we when our election was stolen from us in 2000 by Republican operatives and a Supreme Court that overturned all legal precedent to anoint George W. Bush president? Did tens of thousands of us fill the squares of our major cities and denounce the fraud? Did we mobilize day after day to restore transparency and accountability to our election process? Did we fight back with the same courage and tenacity as the citizens of Iran? Did Al Gore defy the power elite and, as opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi has done, demand a recount at the risk of being killed?
President Obama retreated in his Cairo speech into our spectacular moral nihilism, suggesting that our crimes matched the crimes of Iran, that there is, in his words, “a tumultuous history between us.” He went on: “In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians.” It all, he seemed to say, balances out.
I am no friend of the Iranian regime, which helped create and arm Hezbollah, is certainly meddling in Iraq, has persecuted human rights activists, gays, women and religious and ethnic minorities, embraces racism and intolerance and uses its power to deny popular will. But I do not remember Iran orchestrating a coup in the United States to replace an elected government with a brutal dictator who for decades persecuted, assassinated and imprisoned democracy activists. I do not remember Iran arming and funding a neighboring state to wage war against our country. Iran never shot down one of our passenger jets as did the USS Vincennes—caustically nicknamed Robocruiser by the crews of other American vessels—when in June 1988 it fired missiles at an Airbus filled with Iranian civilians, killing everyone on board. Iran is not sponsoring terrorism within the United States, as our intelligence services currently do in Iran. The attacks on Iranian soil include suicide bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, sabotage and “targeted assassinations” of government officials, scientists and other Iranian leaders. What would we do if the situation was reversed? How would we react if Iran carried out these policies against us?
We are, and have long been, the primary engine for radicalism in the Middle East. The greatest favor we can do for democracy activists in Iran, as well as in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf and the dictatorships that dot North Africa, is withdraw our troops from the region and begin to speak to Iranians and the rest of the Muslim world in the civilized language of diplomacy, respect and mutual interests. The longer we cling to the doomed doctrine of permanent war the more we give credibility to the extremists who need, indeed yearn for, an enemy that speaks in their crude slogans of nationalist cant and violence. The louder the Israelis and their idiot allies in Washington call for the bombing of Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions, the happier are the bankrupt clerics who are ordering the beating and murder of demonstrators. We may laugh when crowds supporting Ahmadinejad call us “the Great Satan,” but there is a very palpable reality that has informed the terrible algebra of their hatred.
Our intoxication with our military prowess blinds us to all possibilities of hope and mutual cooperation. It was Mohammed Khatami, the president of Iran from 1997 to 2005—perhaps the only honorable Middle East leader of our time—whose refusal to countenance violence by his own supporters led to the demise of his lofty “civil society” at the hands of more ruthless, less scrupulous opponents. It was Khatami who proclaimed that “the death of even one Jew is a crime.” And we sputtered back to this great and civilized man the primitive slogans of all deformed militarists. We were captive, as all bigots are, to our demons, and could not hear any sound but our own shouting. It is time to banish these demons. It is time to stand not with the helmeted goons who beat protesters, not with those in the Pentagon who make endless wars, but with the unarmed demonstrators in Iran who daily show us what we must become.
The fight of the Iranian people is our fight. And, perhaps for the first time, we can match our actions to our ideals. We have no right under post-Nuremberg laws to occupy Iraq or Afghanistan. These occupations are defined by these statutes as criminal “wars of aggression.” They are war crimes. We have no right to use force, including the state-sponsored terrorism we unleash on Iran, to turn the Middle East into a private gas station for our large oil companies. We have no right to empower Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestine, a flagrant violation of international law. The resistance you see in Iran will not end until Iranians, and all those burdened with repression in the Middle East, free themselves from the tyranny that comes from within and without. Let us, for once, be on the side of those who share our democratic ideals.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig
Chris Hedges, who spent nearly two decades as a war correspondent for The New York Times and other newspapers, is the author of “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle,” due out in July.
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Mon, June 22, 2009 - 5:24 PM
That quote had an impact on me, but I totally forgot where I read it. It was an email from, of all people, Bob Barr. Also published online.
It's a bit funny, when we've got the true, hardcore, libertarians speaking out in favor of Obama.
Bob Barr makes more sense than anyone here:
"Meanwhile, critics of President Barack Obama are whipsawing the president because he is “not doing enough” to support the anti-government forces. Former presidential candidate John McCain last week blasted Obama for failing to speak out forcefully against the “corrupt, fraud sham of an election” that “deprived the Iranian people of their rights.” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has introduced a resolution.
The reality is that Obama is expressing support for the Iranian students and others demonstrating against the Iranian regime; only in a less fiery tone than critics like McCain (who joked during his campaign that we should “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”). Obama’s tactics may very well yield more than the red-meat approach — especially long term.
Loud calls for extreme action may please constituents back home, and make for popular sound bites on the Sunday talk shows. However, Obama apparently understands that behind-the-scenes actions (likely being conducted by certain agencies of the U.S. government), coupled with more measured public criticism, may reduce the chances that the Teheran regime will decide to crack down massively on the protestors, as did China 20 years ago, and snuff out a promising move toward reform."
www.poligazette.com/2009/06/...st-voice/
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 4:18 PM"I want to see him demanding a full recount. "
What exactly would that accomplish? We have zero leverage on their government in their internal affairs, and they would just use that as a pretext for claiming that this was all a CIA plot.
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 8:00 AMAdam says:
I've been calling for Obama to speak out more. In particular, I want to see him demanding a full recount. That's doing the right thing without technically choosing a side. "
He won't because he knows that he will be ignored even ridiculed by Iranian leadership.
He knows that if he goes into Iran to make things right that he will have broken ranks entirely with his base.
And right now his base is very important to him because of so many other disaffected prior supporters.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Mon, June 22, 2009 - 10:47 PM~I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.~
I agree, but that doesn't mean we as americans can't encourage the green machine in Iran. Given our governmants history concerning Iran how can we make the calm that we ever really respected that nation or thier beautiful people when it comes to thier right to self determination as a soveriegn nation the route they choose to follow?.... We can't!
The US and British have a very long history of fucking over the people in that region in a bid to control "THIER" natural resources. Our motives are suspect, and they always will be given our history....
Maybe if the American military industrial complex wasn't arming both sides in all the conflicts around the world the righteous indignation expressed by our governmant might actually mean something....
I think what Dr. Paul is trying to say to is>>> HAVE NOT WE DONE ENOUGH DAMAGE ALREADY?
For every action theres an opposite reaction> we as a nation are seeing the fruits of our labours... REACTION....
America needs to save itself, but its to late for that now..... We as a nation will continually get caught up in other peoples problems that we have helped to create until there is nothing left of us... < Thats the fate of all empires
Ron Paul is 50 years too late ..... -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Mon, June 22, 2009 - 10:50 PM150 years too late. . -
-
Unsu...
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Mon, June 22, 2009 - 11:10 PM~150 years too late. .~
Agreed.... Lorenzo, given your earliar statements concerning Ron Paul, what would you have us as a nation do?
It wasn't that long ago we all watched tanks roll thru a square in China... Now we are up to our eyeballs in debt to them, and we've filled our homes with thier slave produce.... Our biggest trading partner< Ha Oxy-moron, oh we gave them Mc Donalds , and Coke.
Where does it stop? IT DON'T!
-
-
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 4:16 PM"I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives."
It's called the constitutional right to free speech congressman.
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Mon, June 22, 2009 - 11:38 PM>"When Ronald Reagan went before the Brandenburg Gate, he did not say Mr. (Mikhail) Gorbachev, that wall is none of our business," said Pence, R-Ind., of President Reagan's famous exhortation to the Soviet leader to "tear down that wall."
Gee I wonder what Pence's position is on building a wall on the US-Mexico border.
Anyway you gotta love Ron Paul's contrarian nature. -
-
Unsu...
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Tue, June 23, 2009 - 12:05 AM
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 4:34 PM<< Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas libertarian, cast the sole opposing vote because he said it wasn't the House's place to judge "events thousands of miles away about which we know very little." >>
If that's the sole excuse for his vote, then he should resign his seat in Congress at once, since the whole *idea* of the place is to know little and sit as far away from what's going on as possible.
I love Southern crackpots, but few go so far as to profess their own copious ignorance before the voters. Dr. Paul is a true ring-the-bell Texas maniac in the tradition of the Hunt Brothers and Pass-the-Biscuits-Pappy O'Daniel. -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Thu, June 25, 2009 - 10:40 PM<<Dr. Paul is a true ring-the-bell Texas maniac in the tradition of the Hunt Brothers and Pass-the-Biscuits-Pappy O'Daniel. >>
LMAO
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 8:38 AMI like the idea that since it's "thousands of miles away", we can't possibly know anything important about them. It's like he's in the 18th century when it takes months to convey information from other parts of the globe.
Unless he's just a cultural relativist, which is its own brand of nonsense. -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 11:08 AM<<<we can't possibly know anything important about them. It's like he's in the 18th century when it takes months to convey information from other parts of the globe. >>
LMAO
Ron Paul's waiting for details to get here by carrier pigeon or perhaps he's looking for some smoke signals.
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 11:16 AM***points out faulty expectations and intelligence on Iraq***
-
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 12:43 PMRon:
> I like the idea that since it's "thousands of miles away", we can't possibly know anything important about them.
You're misrepresenting what he said. He didn't say that we "cannot" know about them. He said that we "don't" know much about them.
"events thousands of miles away about which we know very little."
And when it comes to the House of Representatives, I think he absolutely right. Seriously Ron, how many members of the House are deeply familiar with the intricacies of Iranian internal politics? -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 12:53 PMgood analogy Ron, the libertarians, in my opinion, peaked out at some point during the 19th century. . -
-
Re: 405-1 Vote condemns Iran crackdown
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 5:59 PMSeems such announcements would be prescient, prior to the Iraq war
-
-
-
-
