Stop H. CON. RES. 362 - Provocational Embargo is Practically an Act of War

[reprehensor]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:

H. Con. Res. 362 may be voted on following this long weekend. This Resolution goes too far in calling for an embargo against Iran that includes "prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products". Is there any doubt that if Russia and China attempted to embargo refined oil to the U.S. or any U.S. ally, it would not be regarded as an act of war? (Remember that the attack on Pearl Harbor was preceded by a U.S. oil embargo against Japan.)

Who precisely would enforce this embargo? The Resolution does not call for the President to seek the approval of the UN. So I guess that leaves another "coalition of the willing", in other words, the U.S. Navy, with hand-maiden backup from Great Britain.

To get caught up on this disturbing Resolution, check out this report from The Real News.com, featuring journalist and historian, Gareth Porter;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3G_S-LyA_Y

On AIPAC's "Take Action" page, H. Con. Res. 362 is the number 2 priority, preceded only by a call for support for "Security Aid" for Israel.

Well, if you think AIPAC and H. Con. Res. 362 go too far, you too can "Take Action"!

Ask Your Representative to Oppose H. Con. Res. 362
http://capwiz.com/justforeignpolicy/issues/alert/?alertid=11518951

"This agression will not stand... man." - The Dude.

[Echo In Light]

1. K&R

[Echo In Light]

2. This:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3558434&mesg_id=3558434

[reprehensor]

3. Video also in Political Videos

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x154327

This is bad, bad, business.

[jody]

4. Hope you have more interest than I did with the thread below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3558663&mesg_id=3558663

[seemslikeadream]

5. K&R

TOO FAR!!

[gateley]

6. K&R nt

[Telly Savalas]

7. Who would enforce the embargo? Nobody, that's who.

Because this is a concurrent resolution, which doesn't make law.

But it does keep everyone happy:

*it gives the Congresspeople who vote for it an opportunity to thump their chests and appease the knuckledraggers among their constituency without having to actually commit to a policy.

*it gives "The Sky Is Falling" crowd more fodder for their imminent invasion of Iran theories. (Where imminent is presumably defined in geological terms.)

Meanwhile there's no coherent energy policy, climate changes continues unhindered, and we still borrow $2 billion a week to pay for having our troops shot at in Iraq.

[slipslidingaway]

8. K&R also see this thread for links...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=308x699

[tritsofme]

9. An empty resolution without the force of law.

Propaganda value for all parties involved, but little else.

[slipslidingaway]

10. Gareth Porter on the Iran resolutions which contain false

information

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3G_S-LyA_Y

In edit wrong forum as reprehensor already posted this video above, but I'm happy to kick this thread anyway.

[EVDebs]

11. Eerily reminicent of FDR's embargo of oil shipments to Japan w/Indonesia

"After the French occupation of Indochina in July 1941 President Roosevelt embargoed oil shipments to Japan; and on December 7, 1941 the Japanese navy and air force struck not just south to occupy Dutch-ruled Indonesia and acquire an alternative source of oil, but everywhere else in the Southwest Pacific to enlarge the Japanese Empire--and at Pearl Harbor as well."

Review of Akira Iriye's The Origins of the Second World War in Asia and in the Pacific (New York: Longman, 1987).
Brad DeLong
Professor of Economics
U.C. Berkeley
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/econ_articles/reviews/iriye_origins.html

War took only 5 months after that.

[slipslidingaway]

12. Tracing an Iran Oil Blockade Meme

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/05/8371_tracing_an_iran.html

Posted by Laura Rozen on 05/30/08

"On Wednesday, Wall Street Journal opinion editors proposed a plan for a naval blockade on Iran of refined gasoline imports. But they don't say where they got the idea.

The Journal:

The Administration would do better to withdraw from this international charade and consider means by which the mullahs might be persuaded that their regime's survival is better assured by not having nuclear weapons. A month-long naval blockade of Iran's imports of refined gasoline � which accounts for nearly half of its domestic consumption � could clarify for the Iranians just how unacceptable their nuclear program is to the civilized world.

Here was Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz in January explaining the idea of thirty year Israeli intelligence veteran Shmuel Bar:


Dr. Shmuel Bar, a researcher at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center and one of the discussion's initiators, believes that the U.S. can still prevent Iran from reaching the next stage in its program of nuclear development. In place of economic sanctions imposed by the UN, which he feels are ineffective, he proposes imposing a naval blockade on all refined petroleum products imported to Iran.

Sound familiar?


...On its face while not as overtly militaristic a proposal as air strikes, which some hawks advocate, such a blockade may constitute the kind of provocation that would force international conflict just the same -- which may be some of its proponents' intention. (It may also constitute an act of war.) Worth observing how the blockade idea has worked its way into Washington's public policy discourse, and paying attention to see if becomes a more frequent talking point in right leaning national security circles in coming months."

[reprehensor]

16. This is a stupid idea.

Especially without UN blessing.

The US will be left holding the bag.

Again.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Agree this is a stupid idea...

http://middle-east-online.com/english/?id=26747

Nobel peace prize winner warns against war on Iran

Shirin Ebadi urges Iran, US to find peaceful resolution to nuclear standoff for interest of all.


TEHRAN - "Nobel peace prize winner Shirin Ebadi warned on Thursday against launching a military attack against Iran or imposing economic sanctions over its contested nuclear programme.

"We not only are against military action on Iran but are also against economic sanctions," Ebadi said in a speech in Tehran.

"They would spread destitution in Iran and we will do our best to prevent this disaster occurring," the 2003 Nobel peace prize winner said, according to a transcript of her speech..."

[slipslidingaway]

13. Venezuela agrees to sell gasoline to Iran

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSDAH32095820070703

"Venezuela has agreed to sell gasoline to Iran, which last week launched a delayed fuel rationing scheme, Venezuela's energy minister said in remarks published on Tuesday.

"Yes, the Iranians have asked to buy gasoline (from us) and we have accepted this request," Rafael Ramirez told the Sharq newspaper in an interview.

"I can not give you more information," he said, when asked how much fuel Iran would purchase.

The minister accompanied Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on an official visit this week to the Islamic Republic, which despite its huge oil reserves imports 40 percent of its gasoline needs as it has a shortage of domestic refining capacity..."

[autorank]

14. Let's declare independence from Congres! k*r

What idiots they are. It will pass:

"Over the last four weeks 102 House Democrats and 117 Republicans have agreed to cosponsor a new resolution against Iran that demands that President Bush “initiate an international effort” to impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to prevent it from importing gasoline and to inspect all cargo entering or leaving Iran." from your link

102 House Democrats. Are they crazy? The Republicans will all vote for it. Is this why we elected
them? Where's the leadership?

[slipslidingaway]

18. These resolutions were sponsored by Democrats...

links in the thread below.

They are 'sense of' resolutions so they are not enforceable, but they do indicate support for the ideas and as Gareth Porter noted in the video some of the clauses contain false accusations, guess that is OK :(

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=308x699

[autorank]

19. Thanks for the link

They're like the Lieberman Iran resolution of a year or two ago. In his, Lieberman inserted language saying, this is not meant to endorse military action against Iran. He left out the smilies ;)

It's more of the same. Those Democrats must not ever talk to their constituents.

Crazy actions for crazy times.

[slipslidingaway]

20. YW, sponsored by the Democrats so the resolutions must be OK

:sarcasm:

[Echo In Light]

15. Kick

[seemslikeadream]

21. Remember you heard it here first

[bdamomma]

22. done