169 House Members (77 Dems) Push For WAR NOW with Iran Plus AIPAC's Response
This one slipped right by me.
Both the House and Senate are considering legislation that would put us in a state of war with Iran. Right now.
H. Con. Res 362 and S.Res.580 are identical bills (designed for expeditious passage) which have as their goal "preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently...." The bills introduction coincided with the AIPAC conference.
The bill's "action clause" would put us at war with Iran by immediately imposing a blockade.
The resolution cleverly states that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran" assuming, apparently correctly, that potential co-sponsors won't know that a blockade is an act of war.
Here is the heart of the bill:
Congress hereby "demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program...."
Note: The blockade described in the bill is identical to the one JFK imposed on Cuba in 1962 which almost plunged the world into nuclear war. The huge difference is that we knew the Soviet Union had installed missiles in Cuba, 90 miles from Miami, and was about to equip them with nuclear war heads. A rather immense difference from the Iran situation today.
I should note that the resolution is ostensibly non-binding which does not mean George Bush could not use it as a bipartisan endorsement for war. That is the resolution's purpose. It's clearly part of the rush to war. Note, as with Iraq it simply stipulates, as fact, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The blockade would go into effect now based on a stipulation.
We need to pay attention to this. Here is a list of House co-sponsors (lots of "liberals")
and here is the Senate list.
They need to hear from us on this one. Even if this bill goes nowhere, we now know that, as of today, there are 77 House Democrats who have signed on to confrontation with Iran and who will either support (or not speak out against) military action by either the US or Israel. Those who assume that a US or Israeli bombing attack on Iran would cause all hell to break out in Congress should think again. Some very powerful people have signed on to do whatever it takes (unilaterally) to stop Iran, without even knowing if it has an active weapons program. The 77 House Democrats along with Senators Bayh, Cantwell, Johnson, Murray, Wyden, Mikulski and Klobuchar -- have signed on to war with Iran while we are still in Iraq.
What the hell is going on with our Democratic Congress?
JUST IN: AIPAC response to the above. I'll try to sort it all out. I do appreciate AIPAC's willingness to engage.
AIPAC supports sanctions on Iran and favors a voluntary international effort lead by the United States to stop selling Iran refined petroleum, not a blockade. Iran is highly vulnerable to such pressure. Sactions are the best way to persuade Iran to stop it's pursiut of nuclear weapons capability. To suggest that AIPAC supports anything but tough economic sanctions on Iran is totally false...
Comments (162)
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, MJ.
Can we agree that if Obama doesn't forcibly oppose this, that it doesn't fall into the category of acceptable compromises.
I know you want to win.
I'm shocked that you didn't draw a line at FISA.
But I know from reading you all these years that you draw a line at wars of choice.
I do believe, and hope I'm vindicated, that Obama does too.
June 21, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh red meat! destor and bluebell are all over it before even knowing what this is about.
Kick all the Dems out of office! We're outraged! Outraged I tell you!
I guess they didn't read MJ's caveat where he admits he might not even be interpreting this right and is no expert.
SOS.
June 21, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the thread, dondi.
MJ participates liberally.
Your rather odd position doesn't come out too well.
June 22, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you should read the thread Chicken Little.
June 22, 2008 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're on the case, aren't you? Already writing the articles of impeachment before he even takes office. Jesus--give it a break. Get a grip. Take a hike or something. Calm the hell down.
June 22, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's fair to map out which legislative stances he might take now or as president that are acceptable and which aren't. Why is everybody so averse to having a say in Obama's agenda?
June 22, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so I'm clear: Everything is Obama's responsibility and everything is Obama's fault, right? His name appears nowhere in this article and nowhere on these lists, but it is his responsibility, single-handedly, to stop this legislation? Do I have your position right?
June 23, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You got me, Destor. This is appalling! No way Obama or any Dem should support this. But we better let them know it.
June 21, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we disagree about FISA but I do understand why you're willing to make an exception I'm not.
On war... I'm right with you and not willing to engage in even our most friendly disagreements. No war with Iran. Calling Hill and Schumer on Monday.
June 21, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good caveat, but maybe it should have been at the top, before raising the alarm.
Yes this certainly bears watching. But before leaping to conclusions I think getting some more facts and analysis might help.
I'd like to hear from party leadership or journalists who are experts and do regularly cover Iran, to find out what it actually means.
I notice Henry Waxman is a cosponsor. I find it hard to believe he's endorsing war with Iran. Maybe, but it would be out of character.
June 21, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waxman is a good guy but a total hawk on Iran. On Middle East issues he rarely, if ever, deviates.
June 22, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's rather disappointingly sloppy.
Waxman voted to redeploy out of Iraq, voted to cut funding, and voted to prohibit permanent bases. He's also been out ahead with Conyers in grilling the Bush Admin for lying us into Iraq.
Labeling him a "hawk" is just sloppy and seems more about MJ wanting to be dramatic rather than accurate.
And then there is this:
So again, I'd like to get an actual expert on the subject, to interpret what all this means.
If there's something to be concerned about, we should find out for certain, so we're not guessing. If not, there's no need for the Chicken Littles to wet themselves.
Does that make sense MJ?
Do you think we could get the facts first, from someone qualified to interpret this, before panicking?
June 22, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik,
"Congress hereby "demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program...."
Having seen Bush operate these past 7 plus years, this is all he needs, its a blank check for him to do as he pleases regarding Iran, and do it in what he will boast is a "bi partisan" way.
Check that wording; "Congress DEMANDS that the President...."
June 22, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know. But just pointing out there are other different things going on now with this story. Perhaps the bill has a lot to do with that, perhaps only a little.
And perhaps we'd know more about whether it has to do with it if a few more American reporters and bloggers went off the campaign trail and went into covering things like that. (In my past experience watching a news board that had number of clicks on stories showing, what Congress was up to was rock bottom on the popular interest scale, and international diplomatic activity was right near it in low interest numbers.)
Just because the Bush adminsitration has been unilateral with foreign policy doesn't mean everything happening in the world is all about us. I try to keep up with some international coverage, and sometimes when I come to the liberal blogosphere after doing that, I am reminded by the Amerocentric nature of the reaction to certain news of the Carly Simon song "you're so vain, you probably think this song is about you." Every international story is not always totally about the U.S. or Bush.
June 22, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops that makes no sense here because
it was meant as a reply to a reply by John to a commment of mine,
which is downthread here.
June 22, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
So is Adam Smith. Also, Baird, the war-loving POS from WA-3rd is NOT on the list, so that should tell us something.
June 23, 2008 4:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I see Senator Amy has once again joined up with the warmongers. This is always something of a mystery to me. Must have campaign debts or something. Can't figure why else she thinks the only thing Minnesotans want is another war.
It's hopeless. We are a lost cause. I think we're going to have to wait till some Indian or Chinese writes the definitive work on the Decline and Fall of the American Empire.
June 21, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate my Senator.
June 21, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Res. 362 linked in the lead does say:
362 also says vis a vis the 'blockade' - an unlikely event unless you say the US and Vanutu comprises the 'international effort'.
It seems to be just a bunch of hot air but why they would come up with this at this time is unknown, sponsors include Patrick Kennedy, Barney Frank, Udall and do not include known nutcases like Senator Kyl of Az. or even McCain.
June 21, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. I agree it's weird and wonder what's going on.
But that quote above seems to definitively NOT authorize force...
so... like I was saying, think we need an expert and somebody we can trust to interpret this, to make sure nobody hyperventilates them self for nothing.
Or if it's a serious danger, we should actually know as opposed to guessing.
June 21, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like another Kyl/Lieberman. Doesn't mean anything unless Bush decides to attack Iran in which case he can say he has the backing of Congress. Just another Aipac backed effort to cover Bush if he decides to do what they want him to do. MJ is right this is very very dangerous.
June 21, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys ought to know by now that damn few House and Senate liberals ever resist the lobby on these issues. Some of them like Wasserman-Schultz et all are uberhawks and assume their liberal supporters neither know nor care.
It is not an "authorization" of war. The blockade it calls for is itself an act of war.
If the US goes to war with Iran, or if Israel attacks, the silence from most House and Senate liberals will be deafening.
June 22, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, enough with "the lobby" stuff. We know AIPAC is influential, but this has become an idee fixe for you and it sometimes sounds a bit unhinged.
Your coverage of the ME is generally good, but you have an excessive flare for the dramatic sometimes and loss of perspective.
***
As Art Appraiser posted downthread (and as should be obvious) the EU will also want repercussions against Iran if they believe it to be moving forward with a nuclear program close to fruition.
I don't think AIPAC is controlling Western Europe.
Iranian nuclear programs being a hugely skeptical *IF* considering this administration's proclivity to lie us into wars.
Regardless, being realistic, if the IAEA or such says Iran is close, and it's deemed credible by Western European allies and generally within the US, AIPAC isn't going to be the biggest problem.
June 22, 2008 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
My read on the EU is that they're less worried about Iran getting the bomb than they are about the US and Israel starting another war in the ME. Thus they try to get Iran to back up enough to get Bush out of office without another catastrophe.
June 22, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, Kozmic, saying that yes, AIPAC is influential but we're tired of hearing about it is, shall say, pretty transparent.
June 22, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not surprising to me though it is indeed of great concern.
What the hell is wrong with those people in Washington? Do they have no sense at all? Do they have no decency at all? do they have any morals? Do they understand that wars of aggression are prosecutable crimes for which they would clearly be complicit should they choose to vote for such an open act of aggression against a state the represents no threat whatsoever to the United States of America? do they understand that no good could possibly come from this sort of idiotic bellicosity? Are they all taking steroids and thus experiencing some collective bout of roid rage? What the hell is going through their minds?
Even if the nation of Iran developed and possessed a nuclear weapon, what realistically would the threat to the US be? Very small I would think given our massive deterrent let alone our ability to intercept and/or prevent any actin they might contemplate against us. Now coneivably Iran with such a weapon could be a threat, but it is not yet thus and is years from even hoping to acquire a weapon. Why on earth would these people being going so over the top? Something is clearly amiss.
Folks, these people are crazy to cosponsor shit like this. There is simply no justification for this kind of open warmongering. Something is very, very deeply wrong here friends.
June 22, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's rather simplistic. You're glossing over a lot of issues.
To preface this, my view on Iran is I wish we had never gotten involved in their internal politics, and Mohammed Mosaddeq had stayed in power. It would have been a lot better. I'm also not that worried about Iran getting a bomb in and of itself, as the government will never use it.
However, there is still the issue of non-proliferation and whether Iran may start exporting the technology or material. Then there is the worry of a change of power in Iran or situation where kooks get hold of a bomb or materials. And there are reports from the IAEA (to be taken skeptically of course) that Iran may be a further along.
Complicating all this is out hypocrisy of course, having such a vast arsenal and invasion of Iraq.
But you can't just gloss over all of that.
June 22, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Simplistic is assuming that Iran has ever done anything to provoke the ongoing,active belligerence of the United States. Iran was made into the fundamentalist citadel it is by precisely this kind of idiotic, pointless, threatening behavior. Everything about Iran indicates that nation should be our friend, but for 30 years now we have been in the midst of a tantrum because the Shah was overthrown by a regime that actually believes in the sovereignty of Iran. The American posture toward Iran and nearly every key event in the past 30 years has been handled in the most disgraceful and dishonorable manner.
Only here in America can wholly unsupported claims about how dangerous Iran is be made and have it accepted without ever having to establish why. The fact is, Iran is no threat to us at all.
Even with nuclear weapons, Iran poses no threat at all to the United States of America. Any threat that may exist in the future is years away. All this breastbeating and discussion of military action is completely without any cause at all. The truth is that Iran doesn't hate America, the American ruling class is eternally hostile to Iran and the sovereignty of Iran.
June 22, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...for 30 years now we have been in the midst of a tantrum because the Shah was overthrown by a regime that actually believes in the sovereignty of Iran."...it may have a little more to do with the hostages they held for 444 days, than the Shah thing.
June 23, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the hostages were taken by militants in the US consulate where the Iranian coup was in large part orchestrated from. It was a direct response to the US backed coup by radicals created in large part due to the destabilization and radicalization of Iran.
The proverbial blowback to imperial blunders.
We really shouldn't have meddled in Iran's internal politics with the Brits. It was incredibly foolish to think we could get away with that without inciting more militarism and reactionaries.
If Mossadeh had remained in power and in general we stayed out of ME politics, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (British Petroleum) would have suffered, and perhaps oil prices would been *marginally* higher over the last several decades.
But overall we'd have far more stability and moderation in the ME. Saddam Hussein would have never been installed by the Brits and US, and the Iraq/Iran war never need have happened, nor had WMD. Not to mention the Gulf War and the Iraq war could have been avoided.
It's been one blunder after another in the ME.
June 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hostages and that whole sage were a sideshow.
US Hostility toward Iran's revolutionary government was openly hostile from day one. The Shah was our puppet and they overthrew him over our objections. In fact, the Islamic revolution wuold not have happened if it weren't for the US propping up the Shah as our puppet for over 20 years prior to the revolution.
June 24, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is going through their minds?
I can't speak for the Republicans but the Democrats want to be crystal clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they would not, under any circumstances, even consider for one moment, deviating one iota from the Bush/Cheney/Lieberman/neocon foreign policy and that every American should rest assured that when they vote in November that it will make no difference in any respect which major party gets their vote.
June 22, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
1)Let it be known that this bill was introduced just before AIPAC's conference convened in DC.
2)Among AIPACs main strategies is to get people to cosponsor legislation and support sign on letters for the legislation they support--which this is.
3)This bill is perfectly timed to come up under "suspension" when:
a)Debate on bills is significantly limited and no amendments (e.g. limiting the bill's scope or intentions) can be introduced.
b) There is a general consensus that bills will pass with a 2/3 majority. In short, it is more than expected to pass.
This suggests that this is a very real problem (no amending) and is expected to pass. Further, this is a pet project/gift for aipac.
I would be very surprised to see the junior Senator from Illinois to actively oppose this. It would cause him great trouble shoring up Hillary's friends in the lobby. And,in light of his recent saber rattling and groveling on Iranian issues, it seems consistent with his current rhetorical framework.
Some may question the dire consequences of this bill, but having read a few bills in my day, this is not a comforting piece of legislation. As they say, watch this space.
June 22, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look Who’s Tough on Iran Now
By William J. Broad, June 1, 2008
....After challenging Iran’s atomic efforts with everything from diplomatic crusades to shows of military force, the Americans backed off late last year, based on a new intelligence finding that Tehran had suspended work in late 2003....But early this year, Washington also turned over a trove of its own intelligence to the atomic investigators in Vienna, who put it together with clues gathered from many foreign capitals and findings from their own long years of inquiries.
On the basis of that combination of new and old evidence, over the last few months, the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency have come to worry that Iran — before suspending its work nearly five years ago — may have made real progress toward designing a deadly weapon.
Last week, the issue crystallized publicly when the inspectors issued an uncharacteristically blunt demand....
Tehran avoided key questions, says IAEA
By James Blitz in London, Harvey Morris at the United Nations, Daniel Dombey in Washington and Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran
Published February 22 2008 15:55
Big powers in efforts on Iran nuclear agenda
By James Blitz in London and Daniel Dombey in Washington
Published: June 14 2008 03:08
The world’s big powers will on Saturday conduct their highest-level talks with Iran for two years, in a new attempt to persuade Tehran to rein in its nuclear programme in return for political and economic rewards.
In what diplomats say is a last-ditch initiative before the European Union imposes more sanctions on Tehran, Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign policy chief, will lead senior diplomats from the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China in discussions with Iranian leaders.
Mr Solana will carry a three-page offer to the Iranians signed by the governments of all five countries and the US. However, the US, which does not have diplomatic relations with Iran, will not attend the meetings.
Under the terms of the offer, the participating countries will offer political, economic and security guarantees to Iran if it first suspends uranium enrichment....
EU backs Iran offer with new sanction threat
By James Blitz and Alex Barker in London
Published: June 17 2008
The European Union will impose new financial sanctions on Iran in the next few weeks if Tehran fails to respond positively to a fresh offer from the big world powers regarding its nuclear ambitions....
June 22, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's interesting.
So, Security Council members are all leaning on Iran, with carrots and sticks.
I would suspect the EU, China, and Russia want sanctions and perhaps an embargo without further use of military force, while US neocons want to bomb.
Congress would then feel the need to authorize some anti-proliferation action, but also to try and prevent Bush from launching something crazy. That might explain the language.
***
Presuming for a moment there's any truth to the IAEA report (a huge IF) then a probable outcome would be economic sanctions, and perhaps embargo. Of course the Bush Admin would also use this as an excuse to deploy more troops along the Iran/Iraq border.
Back to US politics, if a credible case can be made against Iran, which would obviously be challenged by recent history, then I don't see how Congress can manage to oppose any action.
***
So, not great. But not Armageddon either.
This would be a lot easier if we didn't have a nut in the WH. Then Congress could pass some sanctions or whatnot to spank Iran for proliferation (whether or not it actually makes a difference) secure in the knowledge the President isn't hoping for another Gulf of Tonkin incident.
But, even with Bush still in office, Congress will have a hard time politically doing nothing *IF* the EU and IAEA are for sanctions too.
June 22, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
art,
the Bush gang turned down a 2003 offer from Iran to negotiate;
"And what the Iranians agreed to discuss as a framework of the negotiations was how to disarm the Hezbollah, how to end support to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, how to open up the nuclear program, how to help the United States stabilize Iraq, and, in short, that the government there would not along sectarian lines, and also how to sign onto the Beirut Declaration, which is basically a former recognition of the two-state solution. These are far-reaching compromises that Iran potentially would have agreed to in the negotiations, but the Bush administration, as you reported, decided simply not to respond to the proposal."
This shows the Bush attitude toward Iran, no different than its view of Iraq, facts are inconvenient to their plans.
http://www.truthout.org/article/rove-received-and-ignored-iranian-peace-offer
June 22, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
see reply I put in the wrong place, here
June 22, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with war with Iran, or any Middle East Muslim country? Such a war might or might not be in the interests of the Unites States but it is in the interests of Jews everywhere, if it can be won.
Anti-Semitic Hate Speech in the Name of Islam
The claim is that this is a view held by a minority of Muslims, but it is a pretty weak claim and, in any case, that minority is politically powerful beyond its numbers.
June 22, 2008 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, troll much? Is that a Persian avatar too?
June 22, 2008 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ kozmik
another demonstration of the superficial nature of your education
June 22, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
:rolleyes:
June 23, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two facts for ya Vlad the Impaler:
1. It is illegal and immoral
2. It cannot be "won" in any meanginful sense of that word without genocide
June 22, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ oleeb
Illegal and immoral are totally in the eyes of the beholder. For example - just to be contentious - two of any polity's most important civic duties are paying taxes and military service. It is my observation that conservatives spend enormous amounts of energy avoiding the former and progressives the latter...and both endlessly rationalize and moralize about it.
Since Israel is endlessly threatened with genocide I don't give a shit if they respond in kind. But, of course, you don't know what you're talking about and deliberately exaggerate to support your position because you have nothing else. It's certainly possible for Israel to attack Muslim states without committing genocide. They've done it many times in the past and will, without doubt, continue to do so.
June 22, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, illegal and immoral are not subjective standards. There are well established, widely recognized standards for both. An attack of any kind on Iran by the United States would not be legal, nor would it be moral under any reasonable standard.
Second, I am an American. I am first and foremost interested in the security and well being of the United States. Israel is a different matter, but Israel is not American terriroty and it is not the obligation of the United States to protect Israel. Israel could, if it so chose, negotiate reasonably with it's enemies and find a great deal of security. It has chosen to resist this much of he past few decades and the security situation for Israel has only grown worse.
I want Israel to be secure, but I do not and will not support the military intervention by the US on behalf of Israel. We have armed that nation to the teeth the past 40 years. She can defend herself. Furthermore, any preemptive military strike by Israel upon Iran that is met with retaliation should be no surprise to anyone and it certainly is not in the interest of the United States to defend such an action or participate in it.
June 22, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is part of the brilliance of the right. They mischaracterize the positions of the left, doing their utmost to make caring for the poor and sick as somehow immoral, yet "my country right or wrong" is somehow exemplary.
Go figger, but they managed it somehow.
:(
June 22, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to clarify what "winning in any meaningful sense of the word" really means.
It means limited victory, not complete and utter triumph. It means a state of Israel in 1948 instead of defeat and expulsion, it means expansion to twice its size and much more defensible borders in 1967, it means peace with Jordan and Egypt even if it is a cold peace, and I think further wars - which are inevitable - will present Israel with the same choice; expansion in power and land area or extinction and extirmination.
In the West the choice Israel is supposedly presented with is an apartheid-like domination of the West Bank or withdrawal behind 1967 lines and peace. But this is complete bullshit. All you have to do is read Al Ahram regularly to know it. For the Arabs the Naqhba began in 1948 and won't be over until it is avenged.
So Israel will continue to establish settlements in the West Bank until a two-state solution is impossible (it probably already is) and the next war will drive the Palestinians completely out of both it and Gaza and include partial Israeli reconquest of the Negev - or Israel will be destroyed.
June 22, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensive says:
"Illegal and immoral are totally in the eyes of the beholder."
"Illegal" is totally in the eyes of the beholder?
That would make a great defense for a criminal;
Bank robber: "Judge, well, it wasn't illegal in my eyes!"
Judge: "Well, in that case, you're free to go."
June 22, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensive asks;
What's wrong with war with Iran, or any Middle East Muslim country?
Well gee, ole sock, nothing is wrong with war in Iran or any Middle East Muslim Country (if you use Bush's standards for war)....as long as I or my loved ones don't have to fight in any of them.
June 22, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought that was a bit goofy, rather hyperbolic, and just plain alarmist.
1) MJ is conflating two definitions of "at war" when he really should know better. He's conflating acts of war under international law, with declaration of war within the US by Congress. It's an important distinction because Congress may authorize something like an embargo, which under international law might render us "at war" from an external perspective, HOWEVER the US Congress has not declared war, so internally we are NOT "at war" with and Congress may still tightly control what authorization is given the Executive. That's very important.
2) Obviously the Cuban Missile Crisis involved a possible nuclear exchange. That's not the case here, so even bringing it up seems rather hysterical. Iran will never use nuclear weapons (if even they had them) because it's a usually unspoken truth that Israel, the US, or even the EU would retaliate. Israel has a "second strike" capability.
3) In regards to embargos, "quarantines" and anti-proliferation, it gets rather fuzzy as to what constitutes acts of war under international law, and who can make that determination or what meaning it would have, if all the Security Council supports an action.
4) Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. The UN has passed enforcement mechanisms for counter-proliferation.
5) We were technically "at war" with North Korea till 2007, and maybe still are under some definitions.
6) Under some definitions we're still "at war" with Cuba.
So, maybe the Chicken Littles should take a breath until we know is there's even a real development here. Try to keep powder, and undies, dry.
And for a little perspective, here's a search I did for past and present legislation containing "Iran + Proliferation." It's a long list, many proposing sanctions.
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/search/results/?cx=000879154386758315681%3Aszvmkys3nbo&cof=FORID%3A9&q=iran+proliferation&sa=go#914
June 22, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SPEAKING REASON TO IGNORANCE.
June 22, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
aipacmember has spoken. The lemmings match to the sea. Fine. Just don't take US with you.
June 22, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg, please address me by my correct screen name APACMEMBER, not aipacmember.
Also, I presume that everyone who posts here is an independent thinker, and not a lemming. Please accord me the same respect.
June 22, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kozmik, I'm sure Iran would join you in the view that a blockade of their shores is only technical and not real war.
Anyway, lobbies should not be in the business of pushing for war. Lobbies should do what 99% of them do: work to advance the profits of their respective interests.
When it comes to my kids, get the hell out of here.
June 22, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, I guess we never went to war in Iraq at all. Or only "from an external perspective," not from our internal, hallucinatory one.
June 22, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here comes $10.00 a gallon gas.
June 22, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ drg42
Several years ago Matt Simmons bet Rita Simon (Julian Simon's widow) that the price of a barrel of oil would reach $2000 by 2009 or 2010 (I've forgotten which). His argument was based on the theory of peak oil and simple demographics, so your statement is a non-sequitur in this context.
June 22, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
That should be $200, not $2000. Sorry
June 22, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's so special about the Middle East that it causes this country and its Government, Executive and Legislative, to take positions and actions that cause more and more people around the world to hate us and want to do us harm?
June 22, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ kozmik
You fail to notice the internal contradiction in your argument. The United States had nuclear weapons in 1962, and a second strike capability. Therefore the Russians never would have used theirs. Therefore Kennedy's response was indeed hysterical.
Of course, your argument is complete crap.
It was only sheer luck, and perhaps the personalities of those most intimately involved, which avoided a nuclear exchange. As Niall Ferguson points out in "War of the World", many in the United States were advocating an immediate invasion of Cuba in force but, unknown to them, the Russians already had 50-80 short range nuclear missiles on the island with instructions to use them if attacked.
Worse, a significant groups of Islamists think it would be worth paying a heavy price to obliterate the Jewish state, which could be done with 2-5 nuclear weapons.
June 22, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensive says;
"Worse, a significant groups of Islamists think it would be worth paying a heavy price to obliterate the Jewish state, which could be done with 2-5 nuclear weapons."
You took a poll?
How many Islamists in "a significant"?
June 22, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
I'm always amazed at the pathetic nature of the arguments I encounter on this site. I mean, it seems never to have occurred to you that your position is not the default position, that I could easily throw you question back at you.
The answers, however, are self-evident.
The der Spiegel article I linked gives voice to the concerns spreading in Europe. How much intelligence does it take to realize there's a problem when a song titled "Zyklon Beatz" is popular (Of course, there's no limit to the ability of "progressives" to rationalize)?
Islamists rule in Iran, in parts of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Lebanon and Palestine, and are feared or admired everywhere in the Muslim world.
Further - since the context in which Islamists are being discussed on this thread is their attitudes towards Israel - one has to look no further than most of the posts on TPMCafe to get a pretty accurate measure of their power.
June 22, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensive,
again, you didn't answer my question.
June 22, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ libertine
I don't think you grasp my argument at all.
First, we are live in a very competitive world, a harsh world, in which the penalties for failure are severe indeed. We in the United States have been shielded from much of that for the last 150 years but it's out there, very real, as always.
Second. Human beings are not Godlike in judgment or in wisdom. We make mistakes. We confound our interests with that of the state, of the polity. We are greedy or cruel or whatever.
Third. For various reasons, in the complex modern environment, we must organize ourselves into groups with common interests. Governing those groups and attaching loyalty to them is no simple matter. There will always be disagreement as to how a group should act. In particular, how should those who disagree with a state's decision to go to war act? Who gets to decide if a state's action is immoral or illegal? What penalties should a state impose on those who refuse to serve?
I take the position that the war in Iraq was in the interests of the American people, that it may have been conducted badly, that the deceptions used to justify it were well within the historical norm, that those who refuse to serve are often what I would consider to be traitors. I think I am being reasonable and moral. But I recognize there are many who disagree with both my reason and morality (that shows you how unsettled these issues really are). The state CANNOT allow each citizen to make his own decision on this matter or on most others. That's what law and due process are all about.
June 22, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the hell did you post a reply to me up here?
All your gyrations amount to nothing more than moral equivocation. Because it is a "competitive and harsh" world we should be allowed to act immorally and illegally? Because we have shared interests with other nations it should allow us to engage in unprovoked wars of aggression? That kind of conduct is destabilizing and increases the likelihood that other countries will undertake unprovoked military action whenever they feel their "best interests" call for it. Wars of aggression are immoral and illegal...no amount of exercises in mental masturbation will ever change that fact.
And I agree with workerbee further down the thread...you should apologize to JohnW1141. He served his country in WWII and put his life at risk defending it. It is more than you will ever do as part of the "Fighting Keyboardist" division. Yeah, for people like you, wars seem so easy to wage when you don't actually have to participate in it. You prove it is easy to be "brave" when you don't actually have to be...
June 22, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ libertine
Hey, I'm not responsible for the idiosyncrasies of this site. Don't try to pretend I'm the only one who has trouble with it.
You still don't get it and probably never will. Human beings are not very good at separating their interests from the interests of the group and that includes progressives as well as conservatives.
Nor is your assertion of purpose and morality universally agreed upon or even correct. I don't agree that Iraq was simply a war of choice or an agressive war. Neither do million of others. That's true no matter how many times you assert your positions or what insults address to me.
We've all heard these positions many, many times. They don't change much, if at all, in response to the standard arguments and evidence. But still, despite the disagreement, the state must act...and it acts in accordance with the powers, process, laws, procedures which the Constitution, the Congress, the Courts, the President, and public opinion grant it.
June 22, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nor is your assertion of purpose and morality universally agreed upon or even correct. I don't agree that Iraq was simply a war of choice or an agressive war. Neither do million of others.
Well fortunately the politicians who believe as you will be out of power in January 2009. And despite what public opinion says, even if it is a very small minority of Americans, it doesn't change the fact that wars of aggressions are illegal and immoral as are the people who wage them.
June 22, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. You are offensive to me.
And it gives me pleasure to learn that Zyklon Beatz is offensive to you.
Prick.
June 22, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ coralsea
So what do you want to do, subject me to a dose of Zyklon B, maybe my family too and some of those whose only connection to me is ethnic, simply because I really do strongly disagree with you?
It seems the answer is yes. Quite a common attitude among progressives these days.
In some ways that's not a real problem since that attitude has been the norm throughout human history. It's only a problem if you claim to have transcended it. Are you paying attention, Rosenberg?
June 22, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You scare me.
June 23, 2008 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
war with Iran would be the crowning stupid achievement of a stunningly stupid administration. Amadinejad (I know that's not spelled right) has been taunting us for a long time to try to provoke a reaction, and the Cowboy-in-Chief is spoiling to give it to him.
meanwhile the Iranian people LIKE us and do not want to fight.
what would be the reaction if Iran really did "wipe Israel off the map," do you suppose? we'd wipe Iran off the map. Iran knows this. it's all posturing and dick-measuring IMHO.
June 22, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getz, you are right. Insanity.
June 22, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It occurs to me, John W, that the people so cavalier about getting the US involved in another war (unless the US is itself attacked or about to be) don't have kids. My oldest son blessed us with twin grandchildren and the idea of putting this country (and specifically NYC!) at risk rather than negotiate with Iran strikes me as insane, literally.
Animals, ferchrissake, put their kids first.
I sure as hell put mine first. I love Israel as much as the next guy (altho alot less than I love my own country) but I'm not much inclined to risk my kids and grandkids for Israel or to advance the GOP view of America as empire.
June 22, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Rosenberg
Actually, animals don't put their kids first. Many, or most, will not fight to the death to protect them but will sacrifice a few to save others, or all in order to breed again.
You'd know that if you knew anything about animals but, of course, you don't know anything more about them than you do about anything else.
June 22, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You, however, know all about animals.
June 22, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the lizard part of his brain is very active.
June 22, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ workerbee
I know a hell of a lot more about animals than Rosenberg. Do you want to dispute the particulars of what I said...or are you capable of nothing better than mindless insult?
June 22, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone that gets their knowledge from Wiki isn't particularly impressive.
Your lack of knowledge in History, at least, wasn't even average. It certainly doesn't seem to stop you from claiming knowledge that you obviously haven't studied, or mouthing off about a perspective you never experienced. Not to mention, demanding respect you haven't earned.
June 22, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ workerbee
More mindless insults coupled with silly snobbery. Do you want to dispute what I said about animals or don't you?
June 22, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your self knowledge is, of course, what gives you such expertise with respect to animals, yes?
June 24, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink