Posted on 06/19/2009 8:54:35 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
House approves Iran bill 405-1 By Ian Swanson Posted: 06/19/09 11:51 AM [ET]
The House overwhelmingly approved a resolution Friday in support of Iranian dissidents as that country’s top cleric warned protestors to end demonstrations.
The resolution was approved in a 405-1 vote, with two members voting present.
“This resolution is not about American interests,” said Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee. “It is about American values that I believe are universal.”
Berman sponsored the resolution with Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.).
Iran has been consumed by demonstrations protesting the election of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad since last weekend. Opposition candidates have insisted the election was rigged for Ahmadinejad.
But Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, on Friday offered his strongest defense yet of the election, and warned of repercussions if demonstrations continued. He said opposition leaders will be “responsible for bloodshed and chaos” if they do not stop further rallies, according to a report in The New York Times.
The comments suggested Iran’s authorities are prepared to end the demonstrations with force if they persist.
“We are extremely disturbed at statements made by Ayatollah Khamenei which seem to give the green light to security forces to violently handle protesters exercising their right to demonstrate and express their views, said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, deputy director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa program.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Who was the one vote against? Ron Paul?
}:-)4
Almost certainly Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison.
Doing what Barry will not do.....
Celebrate diversity! We’re a salad bowl not a melting pot!
“It’s important to not allow the Congress to be used in what is essentially an internal fight in Iran,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), one of two Muslim members of Congress. He said Congress should “not allow ourselves to be used” against the people it is trying to protect.
Ron Paul voted no.
Keith Ellison and Rep. Loebsack voted present.
25 others were absent for the vote.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll411.xml
Why did Paul voted no or do I need to ask??
He propebaly believe the US show butt out of the business of other countries. Strange notion, I know.
Yes, it really is poor form to express disapproval when dictatorships murder their own people.
Expressing disapproval should stop the madness. How’s that been working for you in North Korea?
I finally stopped laughing at your post. I think we should move up the status of our remarks from “disapproval” to “strongly disapprove.”
You called it, all right. Is there anyone left in America who takes him seriously? If so, WHY? It's just a resolution, for Pete's sake, Ronnie. What dingaling idea has he got that there's some reason not to say "We'd like youall to have a free country"?
I'm confused - your prior post indicated that calling out dictatorships for murdering their own people was some sort of inappropriate interference. Now you appear to be taking the opposite tack - that something more concrete should be done to stop dictatorships from killing their own people. Perhaps you could clarify which end of the candle you think should be lit?
As for why it is important to speak out when evil people do evil things - here is an article on Natan Sharansky and the impact Reagan's words had on the Soviet Union:
Hopes were raised for such detainees as Sharansky when they learned from an article in Pravda or Izvestia that found its way into the prison that Ronald Reagan had proclaimed the Soviet Union to be an Evil Empire before the entire world. Following this proclamation there was a long list of most of the Western leaders who lined up to condemn the evil Reagan for daring to call the great Soviet Union an evil empire but for Sharansky it was the bright and most glorious day.
Finally a spade had been called a spade. Finally, Orwell's Newspeak was dead. President Reagan had from that moment made it impossible for anyone in the West to continue closing their eyes to the real nature of the Soviet Union.
For Sharansky Reagan's Evil Empire speech was one of the most important, freedom-affirming declarations of all time and he subsequently saw it as the moment that really marked the end for the Soviet system, and the beginning for dramatic changes. A lie had been exposed that could never, ever be untold now. This was the end of Lenin's "Great October Bolshevik Revolution" and the beginning of a new revolution, a freedom revolution - Reagan's Revolution.
Sharansky actually attributes the collapse of the Soviet Union not to Ronald Reagan alone but to three men who brought moral clarity to the conflict and started the chain of events which led to the end of Soviet communism. These men were Andrei Sakharov whose dissidence encouraged those amongst the Russian people who were dissatified with the Soviet system, Senator "Scoop" Jackson who helped the American government to end its appeasive co-operation with the Soviet system whilst Ronald Reagan on behalf of the American people encouraged greater moral clarity in the world and thus in to the Soviet Union.
Paul ALWAYS votes against resolutions like this. Doesn’t matter about what. Either he thinks they’re just useless time-wasting window dressing (which is largely true) or we shouldn’t be interfering in Iran’s rigged election (which is debatable).
}:-)4
My point was that resolutions are worthless.
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.