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 ...
—Read the resolutions. They were a declaration of war.—
Sorry, but an “authorization” to use force does not a declaration make.
There were also the torpedoing of the USS Reuben James
and the seizure at sea of the SS City of Flint.
Thanks for your reasoned, intelligent response.
Brilliant argument. I stand in awe of your powers of persuasion.
Believe what you want. L Ron Paul’s anti war, anti Jewish, 9/11 truther, pro Arab views along with co authoring with Barny Frank to legalize marajuana, etc.
is more at home with the far left.
Conservatives do not support his crap only the closet marxists and wackOs
Six decades of continual intervention in that region obviously hasn't furthered that goal. Let's try non-intervention for a change. What is your alternative? Follow our new president in a Wilsonian crusade in that region?
Right.
Like the gift of a statue is on par with the financial and geopolitical commitment of aiding someone in a war.
I stand by my original statement: the French were not interested in American liberty in 1776 to 1783. Could not have cared less. They were a monarchy, and monarchs don’t give a rat’s ass about such high-minded concepts as “liberty.”
Sorry, but an “authorization” to use force does not a declaration make.
Really? What magical password does Congress have to put in a bill to make it a declaration of war? Must they use the word "war" before you are satisfied?
Read what you posted again very carefully.
One event is meddling in the internal affairs of Iran, resulting in the Shah and the suppression of freedom. The other event is condemning the suppression of freedom, basically the polar opposite. You insinuated that those two events should have the same outcome, and I asked you to explain the similarities.
There is a lot of accuracy in that summation. The oriental philosophers believed that even the absence of taking an action (a choice, a direction) was, in and of itself, an action.
That is a conundrum from which one cannot retreat, a question on which we cannot demurr.
Stated differently by a Westerner, “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of crisis, maintained their neutrality.”
Ron Paul does have his principles and on some of them, he may well be absolutely correct. On this and several other issues he is absurdly wrong, and resembles nothing and no one so much as an ostrich, with its stereotypical head in the sand.
Being near-totally isolationist in this day and age is utterly unworkable.
We have treaties and military alliances with other nations; we conduct trade with other nations, we buy the majority of our oil and gas from Canada when we should be producing the majority of it for ourselves, and flooding the world market with it to reduce the market price and make capitalism more practicable for struggling nations.
We are a net food exporter that is not far enough away from regulations and crises that would turn us into a net food importer overnight.
We have trade imbalances with various nations and exhorbitant quantities of our bonds owned by other nations.
Therefore we have vital national interests that exist outside of our nation, and we cannot afford the kind of well intentioned, but foolish naivete espoused by Ron Paul for a foreign policy.
Even if we began terminating all of our alliances, concluding our mutual trade agreements and taking other steps to facilitate the dream world that Ron Paul imagines America once lived in, it would still be not less than 5 and perhaps more than 10 years before we could be on our own in those terms.
Even then, we would still need a solution to creating food and energy independence (other than summarily executing all meddlesome, obstructionist environmentalist radicals and liberals) for the USA.
By Paul’s reasoning we either screwed up in supporting Chiang Kai Shek, or else we did not support him strongly enough?!
We screwed up in not leaving Cuba completely alone, or by not going at them full-force...?
Reagan should never have engaged Russia/USSR over Poland, E. Germany, Hungary...never spent dime one on Grenada...
By Paul’s thinking, Germany would have simply left the Jews languishing in the camps had we not entered the war...instead of committing genocide?
Which is it? I am not at all certain any of the Paulistas really know, and I am even less sure I want the old Doctor himself to try and explain.
One thing I have yet to see anyone on this thread on either side point out is that, when last polled, the people of Iran (who desperately want to be ‘Persia’ again) had a high positive opinion of the United States and its people - higher than our own American citizens have of their homeland and their neighbors. They envy our freedom, our lifestyles and our ability to choose so much for ourselves!
This is in spite of a nonstop campaign by the militant Islamists, (ongoing for more than 30 years) to convince the everyday Iranian that America and everyone who dwells there - are the great satan or worse.
Which direction may more endear us further to this everyday Iranian poll respondent?
To at least condemn the actions of the repressive government which just got done lying to him about their election, and blatantly stealing his vote, his hope, his right to self-determination, thus persuading him that he is not invisible in the world?
Or to remain silent, distant, and enigmatic - leaving him to guess at whether anyone in the USA really cares anymore?
Speaking out to at least condemn this theft - and/or the brutality used in an effort to maintain the veneer of legitimacy of the mullahs’ government - does not imply subsequent military action by the US is pending.
It is just a recognition by the US that the bad act has occurred.
With zer0bambi in office, we all know, after all - that even if the Iranian government launched a nuclear missile directly at the US, Pres—ent zer0 Hussein would not respond courageously definitively, or without equivocation.
He would dither once again about the US “history” with Iran, make apologies for our intervention vis-a-vis Mossadegh, acknowledge the frustration of their government with our past interventions as being the motivating factor. and promise that we would not do it again.
He hates his “own” country, and that’s how he “rolls”
We’re on our own - very much so.
A.A.C.
But why weren’t the Dumbocrats all saying, “ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES”, like they did 7 months ago...
Seriously though...who really gives a damn whether a chamber in Congress agrees on a few sentences that accomplish nothing. Unless I misread the entire Constitution, the role of Congress isn't to shake their finger at people they disagree with. Perhaps if the entire Congress were more focused on what their "REAL" role in the U.S. Government is supposed to be, we'd be better off as a nation.
Really? Document for me in the Constitution where it says an "authorization" is not a "declaration".
Sorry but you really say nothing.
Ron Paul has definitely harmed his chances for ‘12, because of this vote, and all GOP candidates seriously running for the ‘12 POTUS will definitely remind voters of Ron Paul’s vote on this issue. Once a nut, always a nut for Ron Paul.
Oh no my friend. They were resolutions allowing force.
They were NOT declarations of war as called for by the constitution.
A very different thing.
There is no rage against our actions in Iraq....I'll say it once again as it is clear you missed it.
I supported our actions in Iraq.
I do not support a ten, fifteen year action as it is clearly not in the defense of our nation.
Besides, we will have to stay indefinitely. As soon as we leave, this newly formed democracy you all keep touting will crumble.
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.