West must take Iran’s warnings seriously, as a New House resolution on a fast track

"the path of confrontation"

s a New Congressional Resolution Declaring War with Iran?
by Emily Blout (source: NIAC)
Thursday, June 26, 2008

Washington, DC — A House resolution effectively requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.







H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also “demands” that the President impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran.”

H.CON.RES 362
[link to thomas.loc.gov]

Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

Since its introduction on May 22 the resolution has attracted 205 cosponsors.

In the Senate, a sister resolution S. RES 580 has gained cosponsors rapidly. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has now accrued 26 cosponsors.

S. RES 580
[link to thomas.loc.gov]

Congressional insiders credit America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby for the rapid endorsement of the bills. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference June 2-4, in which it sent thousands of members to Capitol Hill to push for tougher measures against Iran. On its website, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to “stop Iran’s nuclear program” and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill.

Proponents say the resolutions advocate constructive steps toward reducing the threat posed by Iran. “It is my hope that…this Congress will urge this and future administrations to lead the world in economically isolating Iran in real and substantial ways,” said Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), who is the original cosponsor of the House resolution.

Foreign policy analysts worry that such unilateral sanctions make it harder for the US to win the cooperation of the international community on a more effective multilateral effort. In his online blog, Senior Fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Ethan Chorin points out that some US allies seek the economic ties to Iran that these resolutions ban. “The Swiss have recently signed an MOU with Iran on gas imports; the Omanis are close to a firm deal (also) on gas imports from Iran; a limited-services joint Iranian-European bank just opened a branch on Kish Island,” he writes.

These resolutions could severely escalate US-Iran tensions, experts say. Recalling the perception of the naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the international norms classifying a naval blockade an act of war, critics argue endorsement of these bills would signal US intentions of war with Iran.

The sharp rise in the cost of oil following Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz’s threat to attack Iran earlier this month indicated the impact that global fear of military action against Iran can have on the world petroleum market. It remains unclear if extensive congressional endorsement of these measures could have a similar effect.

In late May, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly urged the United States to impose a blockade on Iran. During a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in Jersusalem, Olmert said economic sanctions have “exhausted themselves” and called a blockade a “good possibility.”

Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Colin Powell, disagrees. Iran has already gained the regional power that these resolutions seek to prevent, leaving diplomatic engagement the only way to proceed, he said in a June 7 interview with Real News Network.

“Demographically, military, every way you want to measure hegemony, Iran is the dominant power in the Persian gulf,” he said. “Therefore we’ve got to come to recognize that, we’ve got to deal with that and hope we can shape that to a responsible role in the gulf and the region, and ultimately in the world. The only way you do that is through diplomacy."

story with links here
[link to www.campaigniran.org]

Release the technology upon this earth to solve the life & death crisis we are facing as a species and end our reliance upon fossil fuels.

But the thing is, it's not just technology that is the issue; but the gross & extreme distortions in our understanding of our own history.

We should take Iran seriously, and listen to their point of view; and take it into consideration.

What he is saying makes a whole lot more sense to a 'rational human being' than what is coming out of the Zionist agenda.

We are the ones in the wrong, The United States of America & Israel.

The Jews/Nazi's & Americans brought Nuclear technology upon the face of this world ....

Why don't they do the right thing and release the implosion technology towards solutions for all.

As opposed to 'Imposed Ultranational Fascist Racism' ..

To me, that's the most important question of all.

... or is this just the anti-christ agenda ?

I don't know ac 459376,

but if the G8 does push this bill and it passes, a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz is just asking for big trouble.

plus Iran knows the US supplied chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, and he used them against the Kurds and Iran. This is the reason they rushed the hanging of Hussein, and censored the trial, so the truth would be silenced. The G8 is just asking for a confrontation.


TEHRAN -- The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Friday called on the international community to take practical measures to force the major powers, and particularly the United States, to destroy their stockpiles of chemical weapons in order to rid the world of chemical weapons once and for all.

During the eight-year war imposed on the Islamic Republic by Saddam Hussein’s Baath regime, Iraqi warplanes dropped over 3000 tons of chemical materials on Iran, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement issued to mark the national day for the campaign against chemical weapons, which commemorates the 21st anniversary of the chemical attack on the western Iranian city of Sardasht.

Iraq’s “chemical attacks were not limited to Sardasht, and targeted many parts of our country, especially western and southern border towns, over 300 times during the eight years of the Sacred Defense,” the statement noted. In Iran, the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war is called the Sacred Defense.

The Foreign Ministry also accused the then U.S. government of supporting Saddam’s criminal acts and expressed regret that “the so-called modern world has failed to bring these criminals to court.”

“The Sardasht disaster was in fact a repetition of the Ypres, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki tragedies” that was encouraged by warmongering U.S. officials, who were close allies of Saddam at the time, read the statement.

“Iran’s commitment to the Chemical Weapons Convention and its constructive role in implementing the convention is due to its religious beliefs and in return it expects the international community to make every effort to fulfill their moral and humanitarian duty to rid the world of chemical weapons and bring criminals to justice.”

The Foreign Ministry also reiterated its previous proposal calling for the establishment of an international fund to provide assistance to the victims of chemical attacks.

“The Islamic Republic, as a major victim of chemical weapons, which experienced the most brutal attacks for eight years, expects the international community to bring war criminals to justice and to compel world powers, especially the United States and the Zionist regime, to live up to their international commitments, especially (their commitments) to the Chemical Weapons Convention.
[link to www.tehrantimes.com]

another source

Iran: US should disarm chemical weapons
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:12:20
Iran calls on the international community to pressure the US and Israel into fulfilling their commitments to chemical weapons disarmament.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran is a main victim of chemical warfare as Iraq attacked the country for eight years using weapons of mass destruction. Iran expects the international community to bring war criminals to justice and force major powers, including the US and the occupying regime of al-Quds, to take practical steps in fulfilling their international obligations, particularly concerning chemical disarmament," reads a statement released Friday by Iran's Foreign Ministry.

It is obvious that the then-government of the US as well as certain European countries had given the green light to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in using chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and military personnel, the report adds.

"The so-called civilized world has not been punished for their crimes against humanity… They (the US and some European supporters of Saddam) impeded efforts to put Saddam on trial for such crimes as they feared falling into disrepute."

Iraq launched surprise aerial attacks against Iran on September 23, 1980 in the hope of gaining air supremacy and inflicting a quick defeat on Tehran.

Over 300 chemical weapon attacks were carried out against Iran in the course of the eight-year war. Civilians were targeted with over 3,000 tons of chemical weapons, a large number of whom were killed and maimed.

Iran released the statement in commemoration of the National Day Against Chemical/Biological Weapons as tribute to the victims of Saddam's atrocities. Among the most devastating attacks on Iran was the strike on the western city of Sardashat and adjacent villages in 1987.

"The disaster wrought on Sardasht was, in fact, a repeat of Ypres, Hiroshima and Nagasaki," the statement says.

The use of chemical weapons dates back to ancient Greece, but the first large-scale attack was launched in 1915 when German forces released chlorine gas and killed thousands of allied troops near Ypres in Belgium.

The United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945.
[link to www.presstv.ir]

So, the president of Iran calls for the annihilation of another sovereign nation and you want to give him the ability to do just that?

It is an act of war.

And the Iranians would have every right to commit acts of war on us.

But that's what the Bushter wants.

So if the Iranains want to win this fight, the wise move would be to do nothing.

In just a few very short days, it would be over. The whole world will see us for what we are, and they will see just how desperate and criminal our Fearless Leader is.

The world will unite against us, and the United States will be defeated without a shot being fired.

Unless the Bushter does something REALLY stupid.

If so, then we will be defeated the hard way.

How would I give anyone any "ability" to do anything? You give me to much power. Sovereign nation? what sovereign nation, they are all extinct! If they use the Roman Vatican social security numbers, pay taxes, received FEMA or government assistance, the entire globe is under rule of some government.


Unless you declare yourself a sovereign nation, but that's another thread;)

I don't like wars, I wish all these leaders would get in a boxing ring and fight it out among themselves instead of murdering millions of innocents! But thats never gonna happen, unless they grow some balls, and act like men instead of cowards!

Which presidents and political parties were responsible for America's deadliest wars? To what extent can you blame a president or a political party for choosing to go to war? This map may hold some answers. It illustrates the history of American war from 1775 to 2006.
[link to www.mapsofwar.com]

well guys.....ol' george did this with democratic congress....now, there must be something to this...the dems are shouting in his face, but going along in a big way in the background....now my question is this....whaz up??? missiles with warheads?? subs off our coast?? what is running around that got the dems scared?? and going along with george....hmmmmmmm....now that is the scarey thought...

congrats, you are familiar with the rumor of the century.
[link to globalresearch.ca]

HR 362 is BAD legislation. Iran should be commended for its restraint.

How arrogant have we become?

Our soldiers are SO in harms way if we pull any stunts.

Iran is already taking oil sanctions against the US, with the help of,
Russia
China
Venezuela
North Korea
United Arab Emirates

Thread: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:The countdown for the decline of America's demonic power has begun


UN warns attack on Iran will spark 'fireball' in Middle East
Thread: UN warns attack on Iran will spark 'fireball' in Middle East 2:44AM BST 21/06/2008

Very BAD legislation, but then again I haven't seen a real GOOD piece of legislation in a long, long time.

Why are the Democrats doing Bush's bidding?

The answer is very simple.

AIPAC

[link to www.aipac.org]

They're all members of the same crime family.

All the rest is just showbiz.

Iran threatens to cut off Gulf oil exports if nuclear facilities are attacked


The head of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards has threatened to hurt Western economies by cutting off Gulf oil supplies if his country's nuclear facilities are attacked.

With speculation growing that Israel or America might strike Iran's nuclear sites, Major General Mohammed Ali Jafari also said Iran would consider launching missiles at the Jewish state and attacking any neighbouring countries that helped American forces.

"Naturally every country under attack by an enemy uses all its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy," said Maj Gen Jafari in the local Jam-e Jam newspaper. "Regarding the main route for exiting energy, Iran will definitely act to impose control on the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz."

About 40 per cent of all world oil exports flow through the 35-mile wide Strait of Hormuz, banked along its northern side by Iran. With world oil supplies already constricted, any Iranian action could push energy prices through the roof.

"After this action, the oil price will rise very considerably and this is among the factors deterring the enemies," said Maj Gen Jafari, whose forces have already installed missiles on the island of Abu Musa in the middle of the strait. Crude oil is now trading for more than $130 a barrel.

Military analysts have often speculated that Iranian sea mines, artillery or rocket attacks could imperil tankers. During the Iran-Iraq war in the eighties, shipping came under attack, forcing the United States to intervene and defend oil supplies.

Although some Iraqi, Kuwaiti and Saudi oil could theoretically be moved across land instead, it would take precious weeks to bring the necessary pipeline into operation, testing the limited reserves held by Western governments in case of emergencies.

Some Western countries believe Iran is using an ostensibly peaceful nuclear programme to try to build an atomic bomb. They accuse it of enriching uranium in underground bunkers not to supply fuel for a nuclear power plant, as Iran says, but to feed a nuclear warhead.

So far, diplomatic attempts to stop Iran enriching uranium have drawn a blank, as the country insists it is allowed to use the process under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

As a result, Israeli and American politicians have publicly discussed blowing up Iran's nuclear sites. Last week it was revealed that Israel has even rehearsed air strikes against Iranian facilities in wide-ranging aerial manoeuvres.

"This country [Israel] is completely within the range of the Islamic republic's missiles," said Maj Gen Jafari. "Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime - despite all its abilities - cannot confront it."facilities are attacked
[link to www.telegraph.co.uk]

They know what every military strategist knows. The middle east will never be "stabilized" unless Iran has a new non-theocratic govt. The oil companies will never be assured of any form of continuity or safety in their business dealings in Iraq if Iran still exists in its current form. Also, the UAE and many Arab sunni countries would be happy to see Iran non-theocratic.

TEHRAN, June 28 (Xinhua) -- An Iranian parliament member (MP) on Saturday protested against Britain's "illegal act," saying Iran will give necessary responses.

"Britain's move on imposing further sanctions against Iran beyond the UN Security Council resolutions is an illegal act against the Iranian nation," head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the Iranian Parliament Alaeddin Boroujerdi said in a meeting with British Ambassador to Tehran Geoffrey Adams.

He said Iran will give necessary responses to unfriendly and illegal actions, Iran's English-language Press TV reported.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had earlier said that Britain would take action to freeze the assets of the Iranian biggest bank, the Melli bank, in Britain and would start a new phase of sanctions on Iran's oil and gas accordingly.

full story here
[link to news.xinhuanet.com]

But I thought they were also theocratic?

Current states with theocratic aspects

Iran

Most observers would consider Iran a theocracy,[citation needed] since the elected president and legislature are constitutionally subject to the supervision of two offices reserved for Shia clerics: the Supreme Leader of Iran (Rahbar) and the Guardian Council, which even decide who may run for office.


However, Iranian authorities themselves consider Iran a theo-democracy or religious democracy.[2] The Supreme Leader is considered as the ultimate head of state and government, whereas the President is granted as the prime executor of policy. However, in the recent years Mohammad Khatami has called Iranian political system as an alternative democratic model so called religious democracy.[citation needed]

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is run according to a version of shari'a (traditional Islamic legislation) with the Quran declared to be the constitution and is therefore sometimes classified as theocratic, but it is officially and in political fact a hereditary monarchy, with the King wielding near-absolute power and the organs of official religion subservient to them, which is rather caesaropapism: a state structure in which the government ('Caesar') is also in control of the main religious institutions.

The Vatican

The Vatican City State is theocratic in a very limited sense, since it has temporal rule over a small territory, but that is not its primary function. As per the Lateran Treaty, secular laws and practices in the Vatican follow those of Italy. Responsibility for security, including keeping outside invaders at bay and prosecution of criminals, is shared by the Vatican's own armed force, the Swiss Guard, and the Italian state.

The Papal States -- the predecessor to the Vatican City State -- functioned more theocratically, with penalties that included excommunication.

Athos (The Holy Mountain) Greece

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

In Islam, the period when Medina was ruled by the Prophet Muhammad is, occasionally, classed as a theocracy. By 630, Muhammad established a theocracy in Mecca. Other plausible examples of Islamic theocracy might be Mahdist Sudan and the Taliban state in Afghanistan (1996-2001).

More here
[link to www.answers.com]

It seems to me, this is about theocracy vs democracy

The lightest countries get a perfect score of 10, while the darkest countries(Saudi Arabia and Qatar), considered the least democratic, score -10.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

[link to www.systemicpeace.org]

Where has democracy dominated and where has it retreated? This map gives us a visual ballet of democracy's march across history as the most popular form of government. From the first ancient republics to the rise of self-governing nations, see the history of democracy: 4,000 years in 90 seconds...!
[link to www.mapsofwar.com]

Saudi and the UAE are controlled by the Royal Houses, and they damn sure want to keep it that way. They use theocracy to keep the peasants docile. Some of the theocratic muslim countries are much more benevolent than others, such as Dubai. But none of them like to see the shit pot stirred up by Islamic Jihad. It creates ideas that they don't like the peasants to have.

So basically, the Saudi royal house is a theocracy & monarchy, like Queen Elizabeth. The Royal House uses theocracy to keep the peasants docile, but if they go against the Royal House, they become terrorists. Islam is a theocracy, which means that it is a church state. Conflict of Interest?



The USA is a democracy, But they too follow under Queen Elizabeth's rule of monarchy. There are many sects that are theocracy based, like the Mormons. But most main stream Mormons follow their prophet/President of the Church ( Several other titles have been associated with this office, including First Elder of the church, Presiding High Priest, President of the High Priesthood, Trustee-in-Trust for the church, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, Translator, and Ruler (in Israel) If any branches go against the laws of the land/man, they become terrorists like, Waco, and the recent raid on the FLDS church. America was founded as a Christian Theocracy, not a secular nation. Conflict of Interest?

So is it really Monarchy/Democracy VS. Theocracy?

GOVERNMENT AND THEOCRACY
[link to members.aol.com]

No, I think you are missing the point. They don't want a regime change for any philosophical reasons. They want Iran to stop catering to extremists. It's about keeping the population under control so the Royal Houses can keep all the money. Iran exports extremists, and their views, beyond its borders into other Arab states. One of the reasons Jordan is so peaceful is that they keep the freakin' extremists OUT! Dubai and Qatar are peaceful because they share the wealth the peasants.....they have no incentive to revolt. Saudi has a problem. The Royal House doesn't want to share its wealth and extremists are infiltrating the populace. By forcing a regime change in Iran they hope to curtail more infiltration by extremists.

Oh I see your point now. Saudi should share its wealth with the people, like Dubai and Qatar. But like the west royal family, they are greedy, and like to keep the peasants under control.

Seems to me, we would all be better off without these royal families over our heads. Then maybe the wealth would get to the peasants, and with full bellies, there would be not much to fight about.

lets get somthing strait.. the west dont have to do amything. THATS US.. iran is mad at us because we dare to defend our selves.. and north korea has allways ben mad at us anyway.. but let them be mad.. let them mouth off with threts.. and dont worry about it.. iran knows beter then to do anything.. iran is just trying to insert fear and intimadate.. what fear??.. one move from the west.... THATS US AGAIN...and they WILL back down.. iran wants somone to attack them first.. to look like the victoms.. they build a fake nuke plant to make us worry.. and to make us act and attack.. do you realy think russia will give iran any nuke things.. the mid east is not a friendly area.. the only thing we got to worry about iran is geting a head ace.. if iran was going to do what everyone is worried about.. they would have done it befor 9/11 lets use out heads.. what about that nuke plant in north korea.. it hasent ben used in over a year and it was a empty shell..
they are trying to make the usa strike first.. lets use our heads

They are all corrupt rats in a sack.They're all blaickmailed or bought out.Maybe the worst bunch in the history of the world.

people seem to forget that OPEC embargo of 1970s set off unstable economic conditions causing hyper inflation.........which then sank global economies as time went by..............George Bush was not pres then...................wake up fools........this is the economic war layers of the terror war strategy employed by middleast against the world wide economies.. ................. no more no less..in 20 yrs the ..middleast will do it again with new twist to situation....Middleast is becoming very predictable...in its layers of destruction processes..and double talk.....