Posted on 09/25/2007 11:12:13 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress signaled its disapproval of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a vote Tuesday to tighten sanctions against his government and a call to designate his army a terrorist group.
The swift rebuke was a rare display of bipartisan cooperation in a Congress bitterly divided on the Iraq war. It reflected lawmakers' long-standing nervousness about Tehran's intentions in the region, particularly toward Israel—a sentiment fueled by the pro-Israeli lobby whose influence reaches across party lines in Congress.
"Iran faces a choice between a very big carrot and a very sharp stick," said Rep. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It is my hope that they will take the carrot. But today, we are putting the stick in place."
The House passed, by a 397-16 vote, a proposal by Lantos, D-Calif., aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. The bill would specifically bar the president from waiving U.S. sanctions.
Current law imposes sanctions against any foreign company that invests $20 million or more in Iran's energy industry, although the U.S. has waived or ignored sanction laws in exchange for European support on nonproliferation issues.
In the Senate, Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., proposed a nonbinding resolution urging the State Department to label Iran's military—the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—a terrorist organization.
The Bush administration had already been planning to blacklist a unit within the Revolutionary Guard, subjecting part of the vast military operation to financial sanctions.
The legislative push came a day after Ahmadinejad defended Holocaust revisionists, questioned who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks and declared homosexuals didn't exist in Iran in a tense question-and- answer session at Columbia University.
The Iranian president planned to speak Tuesday at the U.N. General Assembly.
Lantos' bill was expected to draw criticism from U.S. allies in Europe. During a visit to Washington last week, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told lawmakers that France opposes any U.S. legislation that would target European countries operating in Iran. He argued that such sanctions could undermine cooperation on dealing with Iran.
You bet, Congressional shmucks like Ron Paul who did nothingbut try to harm Americas intelligence community as the islamonuts killed Americans these past 30 years.
BTW, I was never invested in WMD though I have no doubt that Hussein had stockpiles of same and was pursuing nuclear technology all along. The Middle East was a boil that needed lancing, jihadism had to be taken on directly and the confluence of jihadists, Hussein and WMD was a risk no POTUS should have been willing to accept. So Bush took it on while your guy Ron Paul sat on his fat ass in Congress for a decade watching islamonuts kill Americans and not doing a damn thing about it except to try and neuter the intel community. You and Ron deserve each other, I hope you live happily ever after far, far from any responsibility for foreign policy.
1) The information about WMDs was predictive information. IOW, it was an (in)accurate guess as to what Iraq had/didn't have in the way of WMDs. 2) That information was supported by the intelligence sources around the world. The fact that it was wrong doesn't mean that it's a bad reason to go to war. If we had found WMD, would you say the war is A-OK? I somehow doubt it. 3) This information (in re: the terrorist training) is analytical and reflective. IOW, it's reviewing records after the fact to determine what HAPPENED. If you want to think that the government lies all the time to all the people just to justify itself, I'm sure you'll have great company with Code Pink et al.
The bottom line is that Ron Paul's foreign policy is short-sighted and isolationist (whatever he chooses to call it doesn't change its actual result). And his tendency to side with our enemies and their viewpoints makes for troubling double-takes and "did he really say that out loud?" moments. These are not things to be proud of, despite the Paulites proclamations to the contrary. Common sense can be our friend over and above "lofty" and "idealistic" thinking about the Constitution.
I think Thomas Jefferson's response to the Barbary Pirates could be instructive with regards to our Middle East "entanglements" and the struggle with "radical Islam." Or maybe Jefferson's not Constitutional enough.
Ron Paul moves to the left of Kucinich; votes nay]
How is that possable? He would fall off the edge of the Earth!
Oh great, we go to war on educated guesses.
****2) That information was supported by the intelligence sources around the world. The fact that it was wrong doesn’t mean that it’s a bad reason to go to war. If we had found WMD, would you say the war is A-OK? I somehow doubt it.*****
I doubt that statement is correct. Could you give any examples of other intelligence services coming to that conclusion, besides perhaps England?
True, I was against the war even when we were being assured Saddam was building WMDs. He posed no real threat to the US. I am a bit more concerned about N. Korea as they have missiles that could reach the west coast. And the head of N. Korea could be a complete wacko.
The Mossad has the best intelligence in the Middle East, could it be possible that they were feeding us wrong information? Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 81, do you think they would have sat on their hands if Saddam really was close to having WMD’s?
******3) This information (in re: the terrorist training) is analytical and reflective. IOW, it’s reviewing records after the fact to determine what HAPPENED. If you want to think that the government lies all the time to all the people just to justify itself, I’m sure you’ll have great company with Code Pink et al.*****
No, I don’t think they lie to us all the time, but they do lie to us a lot. It is a huge bureaucracy and the first thing people in that type situation do is Cover Their A@@.
Do you think the government lied to us about Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City and the TWA flight? I was on another “conservative” forum at those times and most people believed that we were lied to about everything except Oklahoma City and that was close.
****The bottom line is that Ron Paul’s foreign policy is short-sighted and isolationist (whatever he chooses to call it doesn’t change its actual result).****
It is not short-sighted and isolationist. It is what most of us do in our personal life. We MYOB, unless the situation threatens our family or our local society in a very real way. We think a representative democracy and free enterprise is the best way to run a country, but we can’t force that on other countries. We have to lead by example, not war. That was pretty much Reagan’s ideal, “The shinning city on the hill.” Reagan pulled out of Lebanon, but he also bombed Kadify (sp?) and sent troops into Grenada.
***And his tendency to side with our enemies and their viewpoints makes for troubling double-takes and “did he really say that out loud?” moments. These are not things to be proud of, despite the Paulites proclamations to the contrary. Common sense can be our friend over and above “lofty” and “idealistic” thinking about the Constitution.****
It is not siding with our enemies to try to understand why they do what they do. He did not say it was right for 9/11 to happen, but only to look into the rational of the people that did it. It is a very big mistake to assume that other people think as you do, as I found out with my children recently. It almost destroyed my family as I thought my older children were on the same wave length as I was.
****I think Thomas Jefferson’s response to the Barbary Pirates could be instructive with regards to our Middle East “entanglements” and the struggle with “radical Islam.” Or maybe Jefferson’s not Constitutional enough.****
Well, I am not sure what you mean. At one time we paid the Barbary pirates to leave our ships alone and another time we went and fought them. I am not sure who was president at each time. However, each time we acted in our own self interest, not for some lofty goal of spreading our ideals.
Funny the “founding fathers” felt so strong about entangling alliances that they didn’t even bother to prohibit it in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
This is tortuous logic to say the least. We can tell that there wasn't really WMD because Israel didn't attack and they were feeding information to the contrary so that we'd do their dirty work. Can you point to Israeli intelligence which was a significant part of our decision to go to war with Iraq?
Feel free to talk more about Israel at any point, especially in reference to conspiracies and fraud. It usually becomes illuminating in conversations with people in the "conservative anti-war" camp.
Could you give any examples of other intelligence services coming to that conclusion, besides perhaps England?
Italy, France.
Italy, France, Russia, Israel, and Germany all agreed that Iraq had failed to account for its previous weapons production programs which left the door to WMDs wide open.
We MYOB, unless the situation threatens our family or our local society in a very real way. We think a representative democracy and free enterprise is the best way to run a country, but we can’t force that on other countries. We have to lead by example, not war. That was pretty much Reagan’s ideal, “The shinning city on the hill.”
Let me introduce you to radical Islam. They view us as the Great Satan (not in some abstract way, but in a completely literal way). They want to kill us. I'm all for "shinning cities on hills" (even kneeing hills), but pretending that Radical Islam is 1) not an important part of the global landscape, 2) if they don't like us it's our fault for being friends with Jews and for getting in the way of their bombs and stuff, 3) if we start talking to them they will become more moderate and stop wanting us to die and/or convert to Islam, and 4) they are not an imminent threat is "head-in-the-sand" stuff of mammoth proportions.
He did not say it was right for 9/11 to happen, but only to look into the rational of the people that did it. It is a very big mistake to assume that other people think as you do,
If Ron Paul actually looked in the "rational" of the people who did 9/11, he'd be a bit more concerned about the global landscape. They weren't mad at us for occupying their country. We hadn't. They were mad because we say Jews have a right to live and stuff. Plus, we're rich. Plus, they think it's their destiny to rule the world in an Islamic Caliphate and any means necessary to bring about this objective is a-ok. Oversimplification to be sure, but in the main correct.
If Ron Paul would keep taking his meds, he would be much more attractive as a GOP candidate.
As is, RPaul seems to be sensible much of the time, but howls at the moon enough of the time to scare Repubs away.
Please don’t lump Fred in with the Crazy man Ron Paul.
There is no comparison between the two.
Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor, which made Desert Storm a relatively small exercise as opposed to war with a nuclear ME country. That was in our best interests.
Israel does not have the military capability to do the job against Iran right by completely eliminating their airfields, surface to air weapons capabilities and nuclear facilities, thus making our allies and our troops stationed in the region a target of attack by Iran (and they will attack Europe first, have no question about that). Israel will also need to utilize Iraqi airspace and allied force rescue and refueling support to complete their mission, which would directly affect the U.S. and our allies in theater.
We won’t even discuss the unrest that this will cause the region. The shutting down of shipping lanes, the disasterous affects to our economy and the world’s economy.
If Iran is to be dealt with it has to be done by the US and GB (and perhaps Australia). Israel has to sit it out.
Why you don’t see that is beyond me.
I will add this — Iran was Europe’s problem to deal with using “diplomacy.” That failed miserably. Ron Paul would do well to read history written by folks outside of the loony Lewrockwell.com and Alex Jones genre.
Reassuring to see that Bagdad Bob and the new Islamic legislator (Ellison) are still true to form.
Well, look at the present situation with Iran. It has been brought up many times that Israel might take the same action as they did with Iraq in 1981.
****Feel free to talk more about Israel at any point, especially in reference to conspiracies and fraud. It usually becomes illuminating in conversations with people in the “conservative anti-war” camp.****
Oh, yes I have been around the internet for a while. Any minor negative mention of Israel in connection with the middle east has people looking to scream “anti-semite.”
****Italy, France.
Italy, France, Russia, Israel, and Germany all agreed that Iraq had failed to account for its previous weapons production programs which left the door to WMDs wide open.***
So, they agreed that it was possible, not that they were actually there. Of course France, Germany and Russia did not think it was important enough to send troops, not that we would expect Russia to take that action.
****Let me introduce you to radical Islam. They view us as the Great Satan (not in some abstract way, but in a completely literal way). They want to kill us. I’m all for “shinning cities on hills” (even kneeing hills), but pretending that Radical Islam is 1) not an important part of the global landscape, 2) if they don’t like us it’s our fault for being friends with Jews and for getting in the way of their bombs and stuff, 3) if we start talking to them they will become more moderate and stop wanting us to die and/or convert to Islam, and 4) they are not an imminent threat is “head-in-the-sand” stuff of mammoth proportions.****
Yes, and some groups of Christians think that Islam is really the anti-Christ and will start the conflict that will lead to Armageddon.
No Islamic country has a modern air force and none have a blue water navy. Iraq had one of the better armies in Islamic countries and took us like a week to knock out its major weaponry and take over the country.
The country that has done the most to support radical Islam around the world is Saudi Arabia with its funding of the Wahibism brand of Islam. And they have just ordered some modern fighter planes from France.
****If Ron Paul actually looked in the “rational” of the people who did 9/11, he’d be a bit more concerned about the global landscape. They weren’t mad at us for occupying their country. We hadn’t.****
They didn’t say occupying, just that we had troops in the country that had the holiest city for Islam, Mecca. And the second holiest city too.
****They were mad because we say Jews have a right to live and stuff. Plus, we’re rich. Plus, they think it’s their destiny to rule the world in an Islamic Caliphate and any means necessary to bring about this objective is a-ok. Oversimplification to be sure, but in the main correct.*****
I don’t know about the rich part. Some of the wealthiest people and countries (per capita) are Islamic. E.g. some Islamic country just bought a big chunk of NASDAQ. Or take Kuwait, they have to import workers for all the low end jobs, as each of their citizens get a chuck of the oil wealth.
Yes, radical Islam and the conversion by the sword is a problem, but we needn’t have an irrational fear about it. In this country the chance of being killed by a terrorist act is much lower than a lot of other risks we take everyday. Nor should we allow this fear to cause us to give up more of our liberties, like with the Patriot Act. Once the government gets new powers, it rarely gives them back. There is always some new threat on the horizon.
Oh, they could see ten years into the future? Seems to me that at that time, we were supplying Iraq with arms.
*****Israel does not have the military capability to do the job against Iran right by completely eliminating their airfields, surface to air weapons capabilities and nuclear facilities, thus making our allies and our troops stationed in the region a target of attack by Iran (and they will attack Europe first, have no question about that). Israel will also need to utilize Iraqi airspace and allied force rescue and refueling support to complete their mission, which would directly affect the U.S. and our allies in theater.*****
Even if all the above was true, Iran is still 5 to 10 years away from getting the bomb, why take any premature action?
****We won’t even discuss the unrest that this will cause the region. The shutting down of shipping lanes, the disasterous affects to our economy and the world’s economy.*****
Oh, if we bomb, none of the above will happen? The shipping lanes don’t have to be shut down. All that would need to be done would be for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to turn off the taps. What would we do then? Invade both of them to turn the taps back on? Even if the rulers of Saudi Arabia might go along with the attack, they would be wary of an radical Islamic uprising in their country.
****If Iran is to be dealt with it has to be done by the US and GB (and perhaps Australia). Israel has to sit it out.
Why you don’t see that is beyond me.****
Why not Germany, France and GB? You said Iran would attack Europe first.
Um...I didn't say that. You did.
No Islamic country has a modern air force and none have a blue water navy. Iraq had one of the better armies in Islamic countries and took us like a week to knock out its major weaponry and take over the country.
I'm sure Great Britain said the same thing of the colonies.
They didn’t say occupying, just that we had troops in the country that had the holiest city for Islam, Mecca. And the second holiest city too.
That would hold more weight if there wasn't a pattern of radical Islam subjugating and terrorizing people for hundreds of years. You can keep going back in history and you still have radical Islam doing the same thing. The fact that they make those points in propaganda speeches meant to move their own masses is not indicative of the way they really view the situation.
Or take Kuwait, they have to import workers for all the low end jobs, as each of their citizens get a chuck of the oil wealth.
And Kuwait is westernized. That is hardly the norm for the ME countries. Most of the people in those countries live in abject poverty while a very few powerful gather all the funds to their own coffers. This leaves large groups of young unemployed men who are angry, unemployed and looking for a cause larger than themselves.
Nor should we allow this fear to cause us to give up more of our liberties, like with the Patriot Act. Once the government gets new powers, it rarely gives them back. There is always some new threat on the horizon.
On this we agree. Terrorists want to invoke a disproportionate response to their action. Our resilience and ability to withstand and overcome the literal terror of terrorism will determine who will win this battle (at this point I think RP is not suited for preparing us for resiliency to terror). I would prefer a much better military intelligence which was given authority to deal with radical terrorist elements group by group, rather than nation by nation. Cutting off funds. Eliminating armaments. And when necessary, offing large groups of them in their training camps. However, I should add the caveat that nations can become terrorist nations and could conceivable have to be dealt with on a national basis.
And after they get the bomb, we probably have at least another year before they can threaten millions of people. Then a good 10-15 minutes from the time they launch until it hits. So we have 6 years and 15 minutes to 11 years and 15 minutes.
To be clear, I don't advocate invading or even bombing Iran at this point. I don't think a "wait-and-see-for-5-or-10-years" attitude is realistic. It's a shell game. People who don't want to aggressively address the situation now (given Ahmadinejad's statements and his country's actions) will only want to take action posthumously.
Aha! the always reliabley nutty liberal Tammy Baldwin lesbian Dem from Madison voted nay. What a shock. Even big-time Wisconsin lib David Obey voted for.
“””Oh, they could see ten years into the future? Seems to me that at that time, we were supplying Iraq with arms.”””
What? You think Saddam would have waited ten years to invade Kuwait if he had a nuclear weapon? Seriously?
We gave very limited resources and aid to Iraq so Iran can be defeated. There are times when you have to pick the lessor of two evils and this was one of those times.
“””Even if all the above was true, Iran is still 5 to 10 years away from getting the bomb, why take any premature action?”””
No one knows how far away they are from developing a nuclear weapon, and Israel is not going to wait it out.
“””Oh, if we bomb, none of the above will happen? The shipping lanes don’t have to be shut down. All that would need to be done would be for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to turn off the taps. What would we do then? Invade both of them to turn the taps back on? Even if the rulers of Saudi Arabia might go along with the attack, they would be wary of an radical Islamic uprising in their country.””””
Israel unilaterally attacks an Arab nation and all hell breaks lose, chaos ensues, with the US and Europe being able to maintain very little control.
A US/GB attack will be controlled, extensive and thorough. Our Navy, prior to the attack will have the shipping lanes secured. Our allies in the ME will squawk for good measure and to the joy of Lewrockwell and the NY Times, but will go about their business, as will Russia and China.
“””Why not Germany, France and GB? You said Iran would attack Europe first.”””
Did I mention the EU failing with diplomacy? I thought I did. France has stated they will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons so they could very well be involved.
You do realize that an attack on Europe would be completely disasterous to our economy don’t you?
Right, you just insinuated it.
****I’m sure Great Britain said the same thing of the colonies.****
Britain had a superior navy, but not that much superior, remember “Old Iron Sides?” Other than that, our weapons were equal to or superior to the British weapons. The Kentucky long rifle was more accurate and could shoot a longer distance than British rifles.
****That would hold more weight if there wasn’t a pattern of radical Islam subjugating and terrorizing people for hundreds of years. You can keep going back in history and you still have radical Islam doing the same thing. The fact that they make those points in propaganda speeches meant to move their own masses is not indicative of the way they really view the situation.*****
The same could be said for a lot of nations, religions or people in most of the eastern hemisphere. It was a long time between the Roman Empire and WW II, but Italy hoped to regain some of its former power when it joined Germany in WW II. You might want to watch the history channel show, “The Kings, From Babylon to Baghdad.” In no particular order, Greece vs Troy, the Ottoman empire, the Egyptian Empire, Rome vs Carthage, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, The Crusades, The Goths vs Roma, England vs France, England vs Spain, England vs Ireland, England vs Turkey, England vs Scotland, The Moors vs Spain, Napoleon, etc.
Then you have the different religious sects and ethnic problems. The Turks vs the Kurds, the Turks vs the Armenians, the Iraqis vs the Kurds, the Iranians vs the Kurds, The Sunni vs the Shites, the fundamentalist Muslims vs the more secular Muslims in Egypt, the Taliban vs whatever country they are in, etc.
*****And Kuwait is westernized. That is hardly the norm for the ME countries. Most of the people in those countries live in abject poverty while a very few powerful gather all the funds to their own coffers. This leaves large groups of young unemployed men who are angry, unemployed and looking for a cause larger than themselves.****
The same could be said about almost any Asian or communist country. Plus a lot of other countries. India, China, Cuba,Russia, Argentina, Venezuela, Burma, Thailand, Mexico, most of Africa, etc.
On this we agree. Terrorists want to invoke a disproportionate response to their action. Our resilience and ability to withstand and overcome the literal terror of terrorism will determine who will win this battle (at this point I think RP is not suited for preparing us for resiliency to terror). I would prefer a much better military intelligence which was given authority to deal with radical terrorist elements group by group, rather than nation by nation. Cutting off funds. Eliminating armaments. And when necessary, offing large groups of them in their training camps. However, I should add the caveat that nations can become terrorist nations and could conceivable have to be dealt with on a national basis.
That sounds just about what Ron Paul has said and did or asked for. He voted for troops to Afghanistan because the Taliban were making it a terrorist nation. He also offered up the idea of Letters of Marquis and Reprisal. People scoff at them, but look at the security outfit in Iraq now— Black... something or other. They show if you pay people enough, they will do your dirty work for you.
A bit off the subject, but just to illustrate what is happening to our liberties. The local elem. school just sent home a list of what is allowed and not allowed for Halloween costumes and the list of what is not allowed is long. E.g. nothing that looks like a weapon will be allowed. Also there is a list of what edibles are allowed.
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.