Preamble to War?

Submitted by boilergirl on Tue, 06/24/2008 - 3:41am

Foxx, Shuler, Coble, and Miller have put their names on House Concurrent Resolution 362 that expresses Iran's threat to US interests and demands that Bush impose strict sanctions. Specifically, the resolution

expresses the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes.

Dole has signed her name with 26 others to the Senate versionSenate Resolution 580. Both resolutions demand that (among other things) 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; and

(4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America's vital national security interests in the Middle East.

These resolutions indicate a serious (public) shift in policy, in effect give the Bush Administration permission for future military actions. Are the included sanctions (mostly I'm wondering about the "stringent" inspections and restricting travel of leaders) even within International Law? Regardless, how is that going to work out? I think the point is that it won't; it's a recipe for disaster. After all, how would we interpret this resolution if it were being written about us by a foreign governing body? Would we allow another country to organize an international blockade preventing us from importing refined oil???? Never.

So, isn't this just a preamble for war? I think so, and I don't think there is anything that we can do to stop it before Bush leaves office. I hope I am dead wrong.

Share on Facebook

Work for Change

Submitted by boilergirl on Tue, 06/24/2008 - 4:15am.

Let me note, that Foxx has personal finances and campaign finances tied to Big Oil. She approves of drilling offshore NC, in ANWAR and anywhere else. Her record shows that she fully supports the war in Iraq and she signed onto what I am calling a preamble for war against Iran. Roy Carter, her Democratic challenger and idealogical polar opposite, is NC's 5th district's only hope for change and a voice of reason.

If you ever second guess the stakes of the 2008 election, remember this, concluded in The Geopolitics of Energy by Michael Klare printed May 1st in The Nation ---

As we approach the 2008 elections, two paths lie before us. One leads to greater reliance on imported fuels, increased militarization of our foreign fuel dependency and prolonged struggle with other powers for control over the world's remaining supplies of fossil fuels. The other leads toward diminished reliance on petroleum as a main source of our fuel, the rapid development of energy alternatives, a reduced US military profile abroad and cooperation with China in the development of innovative energy options. Rarely has a policy choice been as stark or as momentous for the future of our country.

The bottom line. We have an obligation to do everything in our power to ensure that our Nation goes heads down the right path before it's too late.

If you haven't read the article, I highly recommend it.

It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it. Eleanor Roosevelt

I'm an idealist without illusions. JFK

I have to do more reading on this

Submitted by James on Tue, 06/24/2008 - 6:41am.

but it sounds like Republican saber-rattling at its worst. It's also weird to see Miller's name up there with Foxx, Coble and Shuler.

I want to know more too

Submitted by boilergirl on Tue, 06/24/2008 - 10:15am.

That's why I decided to post about it- with the hope that someone might have better insight than me.

From what I can tell the resolutions were introduced in the House (May 22) and Senate (June 2) and then were referred to their perspective Foreign Relations Committees. 77 Democrats have signed onto the House version. Senator Bayh, D-IN, introduced the Resolution in the Senate. I just moved to NC from IN last year, so it was disappointing to see his name attached. There is some information about it on his website here. I couldn't find anything on the websites of our NC Reps.

I'm an idealist without illusions. JFK