Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:00 PM
Original message
House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
By Andrew W Cheetham - Global Research, June 18, 2008

A US House of Representatives 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."

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

Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution has attracted 146 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the bill in the past two days.

In the Senate, a sister resolution S.RES 580 has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a week’s time, it has accrued 19 co-sponsors.

AIPAC's Endorsement

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 Irans Nuclear Proliferation" and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill.

AIPAC has been ramping up the rhetoric against Iran over the last 3 years delivering 9 issue memos to Congress in 2006, 17 in 2007 and in the first five months of 2008 has delivered no less than 11 issue memos to the Congress and Senate predominantly warning of Irans nuclear weapons involvement and support for terrorism.

---eoe---



ANNEX

Text of Proposed Resolution



HCON 362 IH

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. CON. RES. 362
Expressing 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.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


May 22, 2008

Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself and Mr. PENCE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing 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.

Whereas Iran is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), has foresworn the acquisition of nuclear weapons by ratification of the NPT, and is legally bound to declare and place all its nuclear activity under constant monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);

Whereas for nearly 20 years, in clear contravention of its explicit obligations under the NPT, Iran operated a covert nuclear program until it was revealed by an Iranian opposition group in 2002;

Whereas the IAEA has confirmed such illicit covert nuclear activities as the importation of uranium hexafluoride, construction of a uranium enrichment facility, experimentation with plutonium, importation of centrifuge technology, construction of centrifuges, and importation of designs to convert highly enriched uranium gas into metal and shape it into the core of a nuclear weapon;

Whereas Iran continues to expand the number of centrifuges at its enrichment facility, as made evident by its announced intention to begin installation of 6,000 advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium, in defiance of binding United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding Iran suspend enrichment activities;

Whereas the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran was secretly working on the design and manufacture of a nuclear warhead until at least 2003, but that Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon as soon as late 2009;

Whereas an Iranian nuclear weapons capability would pose a grave threat to international peace and security by fundamentally altering and destabilizing the strategic balance in the Middle East, and severely undermining the global nonproliferation regime;

Whereas Iran's overt sponsorship of several terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, and its close ties to Syria raise the possibility that Iran would share its nuclear materials and technology with others;

Whereas Iran continues to develop ballistic missile technology and is pursuing the capability to field intercontinental ballistic missiles, a delivery system suited almost exclusively to nuclear weapons payloads;

Whereas Iranian leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, a major non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, and a member of the United Nations;

Whereas the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany have offered, and continue to offer, to negotiate a significant package of economic, diplomatic, and security incentives if Iran complies with the United Nations Security Council's resolutions demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment;

Whereas Iran has consistently refused such offers;

Whereas as a result of Iran's failure to comply with the mandates of the United Nations Security Council, taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations' Charter, the international community has imposed limited sanctions over the past 2 years that have begun to have an impact on the Iranian economy;

Whereas Iran's rapid development of its nuclear capabilities is outpacing the slow ratcheting up of economic and diplomatic sanctions;

Whereas Iran has used its banking system, including the Central Bank of Iran, to support its proliferation efforts and its assistance to terrorist groups, leading the Department of Treasury to designate 4 large Iranian banks proliferators and supporters of terrorism;

Whereas Iran's support for Hezbollah has enabled that group to wage war against the Government and people of Lebanon, leading to its political domination of that country;

Whereas Iran's support for Hamas has enabled it to illegally seize control of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority, and to continuously bombard Israeli civilians with rockets and mortars;

Whereas Iran continues to provide training, weapons, and financial assistance to Shi'a militants inside of Iraq and antigovernment warlords in Afghanistan;

Whereas those Shi'a militant groups and Afghan warlords use Iranian training, weapons, and financing to attack American and allied forces trying to support the legitimate Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas Iran is further destabilizing the Middle East by underwriting a massive rearmament campaign by Syria;

Whereas through these efforts, Iran seeks to establish regional hegemony, threatens longstanding friends and allies of the United States in the Middle East, and endangers vital American national security interests; and

Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

(1) declares that 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;

(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on--

(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;

(B) international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks;

(C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and

(D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;

(3) 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; 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.

---eoe---

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9377
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kutjara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. There are few sights in the world more impressive...
...than an enormous flock of headless chickenshits in full flight.

Weren't there supposed to be two political parties in this country, or did I miss a memo?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bjobotts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. You could substitute Israel's name for Iran's and be just as accurate.
This is America...not the Israeli-Jewish State of America. Their massive land grab is pissing everybody off and they blackmail America's leaders into supporting them at the cost of American lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oh my God -- why is this getting so much support?
Do you know where we can find a list of co-sponsors? (I'm heading over to the House and Senate sites now).


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hardrada Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. I wish people could see what a threat to national security AIPAC is.
We will end up with a ruined economy if this goes on and gas hits 10 or 12 dollars a gallon. Don't those congressional butt-kissers have any notion of putting the United States first?? Do they think they will not be held accountable for their treason?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PetrusMonsFormicarum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. Why?
This brinksmanship is sickmaking--it is as if these bastards are deliberately trying to manipulate events in a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. Here are the co-sponsors in the House:
and check out this bone-chilling description:

Expressing 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.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc110-362
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Thanks for the Govtrack link of co-sponsors. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
33. 80 out of the 147 are Republicans - they know that war fever can only help McCain, the Dems on the
Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 06:50 PM by leveymg
list are either confused or with AIPAC.

I can understand the Republican's motives on this, but am sorely disappointed by some of our Democratic Members. To think I actually helped one of them to get elected. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
6. We'll see. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
7. BOTH of these bills are sponsored by Democrats: Here's the Senate co-sponsors:
(A couple of surprising ones -- like Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray of WA)

S. Res. 580: A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability

Sponsor: Sen. Evan Bayh
Cosponsors
Sen. Maria Cantwell
Sen. Robert Casey
Sen. Susan Collins
Sen. Kent Conrad
Sen. Bob Corker
Sen. John Cornyn
Sen. Michael Crapo
Sen. Elizabeth Dole
Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Sen. Mel Martinez
Sen. Barbara Mikulski
Sen. Patty Murray
Sen. Pat Roberts
Sen. Gordon Smith
Sen. Olympia Snowe
Sen. John Sununu
Sen. John Thune
Sen. David Vitter
Sen. Ron Wyden

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr110-580

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColonelTom Donating Member (415 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. Oh, look - Evan Bayh in the #1 sponsor slot. Nice.
Hope that disqualifies him from VP consideration... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
choie Donating Member (899 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
9. am I wrong or
is a blockade an act of war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. choie
choie

Under international Law, a blockade can be seeing as an act of war. And the country in questioning have the right to defend them self against this type of war.. And If I don't got it to wrong, the Islamic Republic of Iran have made progress with their "kilo" submarines, and have also a lot of Surface to Sea missiles in the Hormuz Strait, and if necessary could do it difficult for US to get into their blockade position.. The Persian Sea have the name for a reason. Because Iran "Own" the gateway to that place.. And if attached, it can close it down too.. With the result that the oil prices would triple, or more in a few weeks time... If you thing your petrol price is expensive now, Wait when the prise is at 10-15 dollar for a gallon... Then it would really beginning to "hurt" some...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hardrada Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Tusen takk for supporting us here who see this as warlike.
My ancestors are all from Norway by the way and I am interested in reading the authors Knut Hamsun and Tarjei Vesaas!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #19
28.  Hardrada
Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 07:34 AM by Diclotican
Hardrada

Cool, that your ancestors are from Norway.. A few of DU'er hav ancestors from Norway and Scandinavia I se;). Maybe therefore the "Liberal minds" are what they are;)

You should read Knut Hamsun and Tarjei Vesaas in the original language.. Specially Vesaas, he have a wonderfully way of writing;).. A Translating to english, are not good enough if you REALLY want to understand what is being written in the books..


Hamsun on the other hand, is maybe too one of the best writer we had in the 20 century.. Even that he was convicted of treason after WW2.. Well he was not exactly convicted, because the medical community was given him the insanity vote... He was more than just friendly when it come to Adolf Hitler in the days.. And he was given a stiff fine in the trial.. But he somehow "survived" the firing squad in 1945-46..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. Thanks for the info, Diciotican - I always welcome and learn
from your perspective. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #21
27. gateley
gateley

Doing my best;):hi:

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
29. "....oil prices would triple, or more in a few weeks time...."
I can see this "blockade" as a winner for the oil men in charge of our government. They're hell bent on getting every last dollar out of oil.

Good to read your remarks Diclotican! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. snappyturtle
snappyturtle

Yes,, triple and more.. The oil prize are even today pretty tuff on everyones mind I guess.. Here in norway, it is seldom below 12,87 today. and the prize have been up to 14.00 pr liter.. Not pr Gallon, but by liter... So the petrol is pretty expensive here to, as it is.. it is like US 2,39 for 1/3 gallon

I am not sure the US dollar would survive a war in Iran too.. The US dollar as it is have been fallen more than 50% the last 10 year, compared to the most important valuta in the world.. And it looks like the US dollar are slipping down and down as it is.. A new war, with the low value dollar would possible be killed.. And this is nothing that the neo-con would like..

Good to hear from you too Snappy, good to se you around. I would bet it would be an interesting vote in november when the next president are elected.. I for one hope mr Obama would win. He was not my first candidate. And this is not just because he is black, I can't care less if the colour of the shin is dark or white, but I had another candidate who I believed to be better, when it come to the next president in US.. But as it is, hi is the best candidate.. Mr McCain are to old, and to right wingers to be truly a good president.. Mr Obama sounds like one who we can trust in.. And I have some high hopes for mr Obama. I just hope I would not be to disappointed, he have a herculean work ahead just to clean up the misery mr Bush have given the US alone.. And then he have a HUGE deficit, and a war in Iraq, who must be stooped somehow..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. Well that woud explain why El Baradei is so up-tight
about turning the mideast into a fireball.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
11. Kick - Why isn't this more interest in this? They're DOING IT TO US AGAIN! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
12. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
13. Purveyor
Purveyor

If you make a blockade against another country, when not at war. Are you not in the aye of international law indeed broking the law, and therefore also been subject to whatever the international law stipulate when it come to internationality. If I don't are totally wrong here, it is against EVERY treaty under the sun to blockade another country just for the good of it.. Peacefully commercing are something everyone in the world have the right to do.. Even country like Iran. And if US denied them the rig th to trade, Iran can in fact do what ever necessary to get their trade out... Even if it means boarding, and military action when it come to war ships.. And if I don't get it to wrong, it is also something like that, the US forces have no right what so ever to be in terri total water who happened to be iranian. And if US was to do that, the Iranian naval forces can do what ever it means to send US out of the area who are in Iranian Territorial water..

What this means, is in fact if coming true a war against Iran in the Persian Gulf.. What it means is that the US Congress, and Senate have touch the fire, and now just wait to se when it explode.. It can explode if US are in iranian water, and been attached. It can explode other vice.. But regardless of what happened before it explode. The US would in fact waging war against Iran long before the first shot is fired... And they can't blame Iran for this. This is something the US are waging.. And it is justiciable by international law to defend their right to secure their sovereign waters..

In the proses, the US could lose one or two of their carriers.. Maybe not lost, but heavily damaged, maybe beyond repair.. Then what?.. The next place to Beach a Carrier is in Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean..

This means war against Iran. But they are not been telling it.. Yet

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. I agree that it
could very well mean war. And I don't understand why so many Democrats are jumping on board to help support this. Have they learned nothing from Iraq?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #22
26.  gateley
gateley

I don't know why they have jumped the ship to help support this.. My guess is that they just "don't know better":. They should had learning something from Iraq then..

Hopefully Iran are not taking the bite, and are showing more restraint that the US are doing... Maybe they even could play the US the whole way to the Security Council where Iran have some friends now.. Russia and China and both them are interesting to se that Iran are not harmed... Even if it means that US have to be ruffed the wrong way.. With all the debt US have today, someone in China should whisker to their counterparts in US that if they don't act according to international standard, they can say they want all the debt US own China up as an monday morning 09:00 And inform them, that they was not interesting in holding more US bonds what so ever..

That should give the US government something to thing about I guess:eyes:

Sorry my bad English, not my native language
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tutonic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. This a resolution that calls for sanctions and diplomatic negotiations.
It mirrors a similar measure being crafted by "appeasers" the European Union. It is an effort to negotiate--like Obama said he would do. It is not a resolution of war. King George will not be happy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Bingo!
This is a prudent measure that can avoid War, not hasten it. The bushcos must be real mad about this developement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. When Congress and the Senate authorized the IWR,
wasn't that ostensibly a call for diplomacy and sanctions, too?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. It is also a Resolution that calls for an 'act of war' by establishing a 'blockade'...
(3) 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;
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. If we stop them from accessing refined petroleum wouldn't they need nuclear energy more?
So, we're going to surround their country and not let them in or out of their country. Okay. That's fucking reasonable. REMIND ME? WHAT DID THEY DO AGAIN?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-22-08 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. So if someone surrounds my house and holds me hostage, that's a negotiation?
Where's the give in that "give and take"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
34. AIPAC talking point.
Don't you dare conflate Obama's position with this. He certainly doe not support a naval blockade against Iran under present circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sourmilk Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
30. Sheer fucking INSANITY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barrett808 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
31. Useful for driving oil to the $200/barrel target price favored by Osama bin Laden...
...since Iran produces 10% of the world's oil, and there's no swing capacity left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caraher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
35. The good news is...
the worst parts - the acts of war - are absent in the Senate version. (4) above is entirely missing and (3) above has only the part about not exporting refined oil products to Iran.

The Senate version also has a fig leaf in the form of a statement that the resolution is not to be taken as Congressional approval for military action ("...(4) asserts that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of force against Iran.").
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC