Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Senate Urges Bush to Attack Iran

  1. #1

    Default Senate Urges Bush to Attack Iran

    http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/~r/H...a_b_66223.html



    Yesterday, Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton (NY), Chuck Schumer (NY), Bob Menendez (NJ), Barbara Mikulski (MD), and Ben Cardin (MD) all voted in favor of the "Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment." This piece of legislation actually encourages the practitioner of cowboy diplomacy, George W. Bush, to be even more belligerent in his foreign policy. The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment passed by a vote of 76 to 22. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden voted against it, and Barack Obama missed the vote.

    The amendment states: "The United State should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization . . . and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists."

    Kyl-Lieberman is the first step in providing Congressional legitimacy for military action against Iran. The 76 to 22 vote, which also had the support of Majority Leader Harry Reid, codifies U.S. Iran policy and comes very close to sounding like a declaration of war. Designating a four decades old military branch of a sovereign state a "foreign terrorist organization" is an extreme step that is only necessary or useful if there are plans "on the table" to do something about it.

    The U.S. troops in Iraq are not considered "foreign." The U.S. calls those Iraqis who are resisting occupation "terrorists." Now a segment of the Iranian armed forces is being labeled a terrorist organization. Such a step is tantamount to a foreign government designating the U.S. Marines a "foreign terrorist organization."

    The Democratic Senate is playing right into the hands of those neo-cons and crazies who think a military strike against Iran will improve the situation in the Middle East. On the contrary, it will magnify the current disaster in Iraq tenfold.

    If the Senate and the Neo-Cons convince Bush to strike Iran they will be sparking a real war with a nation that can fight back. With its 70 million people, high literacy rate, key geographic location, level of economic development, and its control of a significant share of the world's oil production, Iran is a nation that could cause quite a stir if Bush is dim-witted enough to go down that terrible road.

    I can envision a scenario where the United States launches a sustained set of air raids against most of the infrastructure of Iran, specifically targeting the "nuclear facilities" that are widely dispersed throughout the country. The Democrats in Congress will be jumping through hoops like well-trained circus dogs as they vote for resolutions and give speeches validating the aggression. And then we're off to the races in another illegal war against a nation that has not attacked us.

    Iran accounts for about 4 percent of the world's daily oil production, and will surely shut off the spigots if it is attacked sending the price of oil skyward. (Iran's ally Venezuela might follow suit.) Petroleum analysts estimate that the world runs only about a 2 percent excess capacity of oil production, which could mean an instant drop to a negative world supply if Iran chooses to stop pumping. This reduction in output alone could wreak havoc with global energy markets.

    Iran might also take the step of disrupting the oil production of neighboring Gulf States through missile attacks on their oil infrastructure and sabotage. The world production of oil could then drop to a negative 10 percent or more, and the price could shoot up even higher. The American people, who consume more oil per capita than any people on earth, will be waiting in long lines to fill up our tanks as we did during the Iranian revolution in 1978-79. Ordinary Americans don't only get the privilege of paying for the costs of the missiles and ordnance Bush will throw at Iran, but we also get the honor of paying triple the amount for a gallon of gas while we are queued up at the pump.

    The Iranian silkworm missiles, supplied by China, (which recently signed a $100 billion oil and gas deal with Iran), will rip through the shipping of the Persian Gulf. Explosions of undetermined origin will rake through the oil platforms and infrastructure of the Gulf States. Iraq's civil war will reach a new intensity. And bombs will go off throughout the region wreaking havoc with the smooth transport of oil.

    The Iranians and their allies in the Gulf will cause trouble in the Straights of Hormuz where 40 percent of the world's oil passes. They will turn the Gulf into a garbage dump of damaged ships and flaming oil dereks. Russia and China will supply arms to Iran and the conflict will continue, like Iraq, for as long as the United States tries to impose its will on the region through brute force.

    They will also probably have agents blow up U.S. embassies and other targets all over the world. The war will be the most destabilizing the Persian Gulf has ever seen.
    Compounded with the financial strains of the $600 billion Iraq occupation, the new war with Iran will run the risk of bankrupting the United States. China might cash in some of its $1 trillion in U.S. treasury bonds and exchange them for Euros. The value of the dollar could then be suddenly devalued. The life savings of millions of Americans could be threatened as the dollar tanks, and interest rates shoot up when the central banks try to entice foreigners' to hang on to their dollars to stop the hemorrhaging. And this devaluing of the dollar could occur in an environment of hyperinflation because the high price of oil will drive up the costs of everything.

    So let's not let those narrow interests who seek another wider war in the Middle East prevail. They don't really know what they're getting themselves into.

  2. #2
    radioguy
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Linkster
    The amendment states: "The United State should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization . . . and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists."
    Sounds like a very sound decision to me, but I fail to see how this urges Bush to attack Iran? Oh, wait a minute... I notice that our "I'm not a liberal" guy, Linkster, has gotten his news from one of the top liberal blog sites on the net, so that explains the slant.

    Do you have any clue why this amendment passed with bi-partisan support Linkster?

    Well, the reason it passed is because even the libs in Washington couldn't refute what was contained in the amendment. Here, let me show you:

    (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

    (1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``[i]t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.

    (2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.

    (3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM [Jaysh al-Mahdi], since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.

    (4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``[t]he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. ..... It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.

    (5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``[w]e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.

    (6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``[w]e know that it goes as high as [Brig. Gen. Qassem] Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. ..... We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.

    (7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``[t]he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.

    (8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``[t]he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.

    (9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``[t]e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white. ..... We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape. ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not. ..... So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.

    (10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``[w]hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth. ..... In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.

    (11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that ``[t]here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians..... Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.

    (12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``[m]ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force..... For the period of June through the end of August, [explosively formed penetrator] events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.

    (13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    (14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business ..... Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.

    (15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``[w]e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.


    Now wouldn't you have to agree, the designation of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization is well founded?

    You wouldn't be suggesting that we pretend that they aren't killing our troops and arming terrorist, would you Linkster?

  3. #3

    Default

    anything that brings us closer to ww3 is doubleplus good with me.

    Lieberman is the man! wuss republicans couldn't get it done.

  4. #4
    TheCenturion
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by radioguy
    Sounds like a very sound decision to me, but I fail to see how this urges Bush to attack Iran? Oh, wait a minute... I notice that our "I'm not a liberal" guy, Linkster, has gotten his news from one of the top liberal blog sites on the net, so that explains the slant.

    Do you have any clue why this amendment passed with bi-partisan support Linkster?

    Well, the reason it passed is because even the libs in Washington couldn't refute what was contained in the amendment. Here, let me show you:

    (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

    (1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``[i]t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.

    (2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.

    (3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM [Jaysh al-Mahdi], since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.

    (4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``[t]he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. ..... It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.

    (5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``[w]e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.

    (6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``[w]e know that it goes as high as [Brig. Gen. Qassem] Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. ..... We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.

    (7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``[t]he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.

    (8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``[t]he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.

    (9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``[t]e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white. ..... We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape. ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not. ..... So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.

    (10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``[w]hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth. ..... In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.

    (11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that ``[t]here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians..... Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.

    (12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``[m]ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force..... For the period of June through the end of August, [explosively formed penetrator] events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.

    (13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    (14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business ..... Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.

    (15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``[w]e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.


    Now wouldn't you have to agree, the designation of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization is well founded?

    You wouldn't be suggesting that we pretend that they aren't killing our troops and arming terrorist, would you Linkster?
    Wow that's amazing. Radioretard can even cut and paste the lies from Bush's trained seal while he injects himself with testosterone. Very impressive.

    Too bad he can't inject himself with some brain matter too. This scenario is just one more iron clad and prima facie example of why invading Iraq wasn't a real bright idea. In fact, it's demonstrably the dumbest blunder in Foreign Policy History. But that doesn't deter the hard core psychopaths in the Monkey Right-Wing Nut Brigade... especially if they can watch it all on TV from a distance while cheering attacks on the perceived enemies of the Zionist New World Order which they fantasize are to be routed like so many little pixelated images of mushrooms on a laptop monitor.

    But when it comes to dumb fvcks who can't wipe their own ass, like Bush and by extension, Radiogeek - fvck-ups become their own justification for even grander and more universally destructive fvck-ups until the chickens finally come home to roost. and the lights go out on their little laptop bombardier programs. But that's OK. Radioloonie can probably be trained to find his ass with a flashlight.
    Last edited by TheCenturion; 09-28-2007 at 12:12 AM.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill
    anything that brings us closer to ww3 is doubleplus good with me.

    Lieberman is the man! wuss republicans couldn't get it done.
    I like your use of 1984 double speak...it's refreshing...lol

  6. #6
    radioguy
    Guest

    Default

    Facts are a bitch, ain't they DieChrist? (aka TheCenturion)

  7. #7
    TheCenturion
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by radioguy
    Facts are a bitch, ain't they DieChrist? (aka TheCenturion)

    Perhaps..But they're bitches that have enough class not to have anything to do with you, Germ.

  8. #8
    disrupter
    Guest

    Default

    If you can hang a label 'terrorist' on anybody it allows complete outlaw treatment of them,

    Just as the many innocent people at gitmo have been treated.

    It is the dehumanization propaganda campaign.

  9. #9
    radioguy
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disrupter
    If you can hang a label 'terrorist' on anybody it allows complete outlaw treatment of them...
    So exactly who do you disagree with on this disrupter?

    The nearly 80% of the Senators who voted, that agreed with this amendment?
    The commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, General David Petraeus?
    The United States Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker?
    The Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq?
    Retired General James Jones?
    The Department of Defense, that published a report entitled "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq''?

    I would really be interested in your reasoning as to why Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps shouldn't be classified as a "foreign terrorist organization"

  10. #10

    Default

    I didnt really notice where it came from - it was in the news feed we get here and thats where I copied it from

    I dont believe that this action is "well-founded" as a matter of fact it is the first time a military arm of a sovereign nation has ever been designated a terrorist entity - and that is the part that worries me as it basically (without specifically stating it) gives the US president the authorization to go to war with Iran

    I dont pretend anything - if I had verfiable facts that Iran was arming anyone Im sure I could look a little deeper - but since I have to depend on media outlets run by AIPAC to do that, its a toss up.

    More importantly - I hope that you understand that the US is supporting one party more than another in Iraq (the Shiite) and this is who we evidently want to leave in power - which is the biggest problem down the road as the Shia are very friendly to Iran - which leaves many other factions fighting against Iran again - puts them back a few decades to a time when Iran wanted to take over Iraq

    I recently noted that we also have been arming (the US that is) another group in Iran to help cause hate and discontent within Iran - so in effect arent we doing the same thing - arming terrorists?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •