Posted on 06/19/2009 10:24:56 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
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."
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, although a vote was not certain.
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“What exactly did this resolution today accomplish?”
Other than a temporary distraction for the sheeple, it’s meaningless. Surely it serves as some feel good thingy sheeple seem to crave.
Now if congress had passed a resolution condemning Obama for his assuming control of private enterprizes, hiring and firing corporate execs, controlling their salaries etc, then we might have something to chatter about.
Oh well. Good luck getting a resolution like that from these socialists who now control congress.
There was no way to save the lives of millions of people (not just Jews - and I have no idea how some Jews today think that they could have been saved any better than the other six+ million people that Hitler killed in bulk numbers) other than by crushing the German war machine.
We didn’t have the machinery to make war in 1940. And especially not in 1939. If you think we did, please go back and review the detailed history of WWII and our industrial capacity at that time. After WWII broke out, the US started tooling up for war - in a big way. If we had decided to get into the war in late 1939, so we could please all manner of European pecksniffs (who, truth be told, were the ones who created and enabled Hitler - not the US), we would have suffered losses akin to those of the USSR, who got into a shooting war before they had their industrial capacity spun up to meet the needs.
The US, contrary to this revisionism of today, was not sitting around with our thumbs up our asses in ‘39 to ‘41. Example: the B-17E, which was the first heavy bomber to carry the fight to Germany, wasn’t completed until late (September) 1941. The first PROTOTYPE of the B-24 flew in (drum roll please) December, 1939 - three months after WWII started.
Long story short: We didn’t have jack-all with which to fight WWII when it started. It is nice for elegant cripples, who will never have to go to war because we strangely seem to always field the armored wheelchair brigades last in a battle, to want to get us into wars... but the truth was that we simply were not ready. And the most sage and practical minds of the day were the ones who prevailed. Wars are fought by political types with “strategy” and high-minded ideals, but they’re fought in reality by real men who worry about logistics. Logistics sounds so terribly unimpressive, but it is what wins wars.
We didn’t have Liberty ships until the middle of 1941. So even if we wanted to get into a fight overseas, we not only lacked the weapons, we lacked the shipping infrastructure necessary to ship huge amounts of material to the battle theatre.
Sometimes, diplomacy is the art of saying “Niiiiice doggy” whilst you’re reaching for a suitable rock...
Ron Paul doesn’t like the US meddling in foreign political affairs, so this seems like a consistent vote for him.
Do you want to have a serious discussion? I said quite clearly that the war would have been more protracted and devolved more into irregular (including guerilla) warfare. This would have meant that the outcome would have been less dependent on single pitched battles. BTW, the Brits had pretty much lost Yorktown because they were being cut to pieces by the militia forces....but that's another issue.
Now, let me repeat my question: do you think it was wise from the standpoint of France's national interest for them to support us?
I may not agree with his vote but at least Ron Paul is consistent in his beliefs and his political ideology which makes him one of the few honest members of government.
Yes, in the convoluted, through-the-looking glass world of Iran, yes it does.
In Iran, America is the Great Satan. That’s state religion, much as in N. Korea.
So if we give too much support and verbal boosting to a candidate, he becomes a “zionist conspirator with the Great Satan” in Iranian domestic politics. So we should sit back and be a bit more subtle in this, probably working the situation through our assets in Iraq, which is right next door.
We’re going to “coddle” whatever tyrant Iran puts up. You can call Morty and make book on it. We’re simply not going to invade Iran. We don’t have the force structure to deal with Iran and have our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now. We’re simply stretched too thinly, and (to not put too fine a point on it) we’re broke. Never mind that we have the Democrats in control of foreign policy, which is a whole ‘nother discussion.
Thanks,...good article.
Roger on your info and thanks for the refresher. I thought that the America First-ers were more on Roosevelt’s case to stay out (and actually defending the Nazis), rather than those who wanted us to get in right away. I seem to recall that prominent Senators blocked Roosevelt’s efforts to demonstrate the hostility of the Germans. It was definitely not as cut-and-dry as portrayed in the movies, public screwls, etc.
See, for example, link in my post 139, where he compares the palistinians to concentration camp victims.
Yes, you’re right that there were some isolationists in the middle of the discussion, and they had a savagely important point to make: When the US got into WWI, there was no compelling US interest. The Zimmermann Telegram was what tipped us in. When our boys got to Europe in WWI, we found a Allied leadership that seemed to view their men with disdain and contempt for their suffering in the trenches. The US bucked this trend and in return, our men were (for their numbers) more effective than the English or French troops.
After our boys got home from WWI however, they were not treated well by our government. Go check out the “Bonus Army” episodes of the early 1930’s for an example. So yes, there clearly was an isolationist streak, but it was fueled by many men had seen just how shoddily the European powers had treated their men, and then they got their own contempt and derision from our elected leaders in the Depression.
There was a pro-Nazi movement in the US, just as there was a pro-communist movement in the US. During the 1930’s, a lot of people figured that the American model had completely broken down and we needed to pick up some other socio-economic model for American society.
But the sage heads in serious meetings behind closed doors were counseling that we delay entry into the war because of all the issues I laid out above: we were not ready. Period, full stop. We were not ready by December, 1941 either. We didn’t start military operations in earnest until August 1942...
Ron Paul
I agree
What is a “ROP”?
Are Y’all talking about Keith Ellison from Minneasota?
you have a point about Mr Paul. When i am in the senate in thirty years or so, that is how I will be, except much more conservative than he.
does anyone know what Paul’s ACTUAL stance on abortion is? Libertarian to me is so loose of a philosophical description of one’s political beliefs i can only describe it as goob-gob, if anyone understands that!
Sorry to any libertarian on FR
So you figured out that a statue commemorating the centennial of the signing of the United States Declaration of Independence, representing the friendship between France and America that was formed during the American Revolution, happened about 100 years later? Really? A centennial gift given 100 years later? Great research there, Einstein. Us folks who done gone to da publik skool are lucky to have folks like u around.
The two have nothing to do with each other
Yeah, a statue commemorating our independence from British rule, which just happens to be called the Statue of Liberty, given by a country sympathetic to our struggle from British tyranny, have nothing to do with one another. If I haddn't done gone to publik skool i'd be smart lyke u and knowed dat.
What?
I condemn the crackdown by Tehran and Congress condemns the crackdown by Tehran. Neither are conducting foreign policy.
The President and Ron Paul should do the same.
...not too difficult really.
I must heartily disagree with ya on that. If America did nothing about external affairs, then we would be speaking German right now, with a population of about 100 million instead of 300 million. If America keeps to herself, we will only be worse off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.