A step toward war

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneSheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have heard that “reliable sources” say that sections 601c and d are STILL ON THE BILL!!!

hcfa.house.gov/112/ROSLEH_091_xml.pdf

If this is so, the sections are being hidden from public view in a lot of places, including here:

govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1905

I would sure like to know what is going on. Just as a reminder, these sections are the ones that restrict any person in from making contact with an Iranian government representative, which severely limits diplomacy, even though there is a 15-day exception clause.
 
OneSheep said:
I have heard that “reliable sources” say that sections 601c and d are STILL ON THE BILL!!!

hcfa.house.gov/112/ROSLEH_091_xml.pdf
Click to expand...
The document you cited was created on October 31, 2011 so it is possible that the 601c and 601d were removed during November. But the legislative history of the bill doesn’t show it being amended to remove those provisions.

Does someone have any insight into this?
 
OneSheep said:
Here is the link to the #2 position:

money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/12/08/234897/index.htm

As far as “undue influence”, I obviously disagree with that opinion. When our congress stands up and applauds virtually everything Israel does, including the cluster bombing of Lebanon, which was totally unnecessary, and takes the unprecedented step of stifling diplomacy with Iran, and continues to give billions of dollars in aid to a country (Israel) that needs it far less than we do, I think the actions speak for themselves. The West Bank Real Estate lobby is arguably the most influential force on U.S. foreign policy in the history of our nation.

As far as Ron Paul goes, he may be our only hope in terms of stopping some aggression from happening, because he may be the only guy willing to stand up to the West Bank Real Estate lobby. Everyone else competes for the lobby’s money; the more hawkish they are on Iran, the more they get.

I wish this thread would veer away from attack strategies and scenarios. War is not the Christian way to solve these problems, prayer and forgiveness (yes, including forgiving Iran for wanting nuclear weapons and supporting Israel’s enemies, and Iran forgiving us for assasinating their president in the 50’s). What else are the reconcilable issues? Maybe we can solve the whole works right here. Iran’s acceptance of other currencies to buy their oil is a big one.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.

WHICH Iranian president did the US assasinate in the 1950s?

Its one of the greatest downfalls Ive seen from the Paulbots. Short term memory loss, and no knowledge of anything prior to 1980.

If you missed it, our nefarious “coup” consisted of convincing the Shah to DISMISS his PM. If you also missed it, this was within the Shah’s power, and is the case in many constitutional monarchies.
 
scipio337 said:
Hmmm.

WHICH Iranian president did the US assasinate in the 1950s?

Its one of the greatest downfalls Ive seen from the Paulbots. Short term memory loss, and no knowledge of anything prior to 1980.

If you missed it, our nefarious “coup” consisted of convincing the Shah to DISMISS his PM. If you also missed it, this was within the Shah’s power, and is the case in many constitutional monarchies.
Click to expand...
Woops. Wasn’t assasinated, but many of his supporters were killed. My understanding was that the Shah was installed by the coup. In any case, the U.S. supported a coup that ousted a popularly elected leader.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

In any case, one really can’t argue that it is an incident that it would be on the list of items for which Iran can forgive us, at least for many, if not most Iranians.
 
Dale_M said:
The document you cited was created on October 31, 2011 so it is possible that the 601c and 601d were removed during November. But the legislative history of the bill doesn’t show it being amended to remove those provisions.

Does someone have any insight into this?
Click to expand...
Is this sort of thing common? Let the conspiracy theories flow… There is big money behind the bill, for sure, and if something controversial could be hidden, it will be.
 
With the mysterious explosions at Iran’s in the process of being built nuclear facilities, saw that the Ayatollah is putting military forces on a war footing. Tensions are rising.

“Cry Havoc And Let Slip The Dogs Of War?”

blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/12/05/cry-havoc-and-let-slip-the-dogs-of-war/

From the article
…To the degree that the US is involved in these events, the ayatollah is almost surely barking up the wrong tree. The Obama administration is pursuing a policy of sanctions, diplomatic pressure and perhaps more dramatic actions in the hope of avoiding rather than provoking a conflict with the Islamic Republic. This President genuinely does not want a war in Iran, but he also does not want Iran to get a bomb and he thinks our present policy mix is his best hope of avoiding that choice. The Israelis of course are a wild card, but it seems unlikely that anyone planning massive military strikes against Iran would begin by smaller, ground based attacks calculated to set the country on edge and to put its defenders on high alert.
It is also possible that the Supreme Guide, rattled by evidence that his security establishment is riddled with double agents and secret enemies, feels that to do nothing following humiliatingly successful attacks is not possible. He must do something, and being unable or unwilling to attack Israel directly or through proxies, and fearing the response of the US to armed provocations, he is simply trying to look busy, effective and prepared.
But the Supreme Leader is supremely right about one thing: Iran’s current relations with the US look much more like war than like peace. A miscalculation by either side could set off a conflict that both may think is inevitable, but that neither wants right now.
Posted in Quick Takes
Click to expand...
 
scipio337 said:
Hmmm.

WHICH Iranian president did the US assasinate in the 1950s?

Its one of the greatest downfalls Ive seen from the Paulbots. Short term memory loss, and no knowledge of anything prior to 1980.

If you missed it, our nefarious “coup” consisted of convincing the Shah to DISMISS his PM. If you also missed it, this was within the Shah’s power, and is the case in many constitutional monarchies.
Click to expand...
You are correct.

Iran has been run by one shah or another for thousands of years.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kings_of_Persia

The “usual” method of changeover was by killing.

The Pahlevi dynasty replaced another in 1925.

father: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rezā_Shāh

And in 1941:

son: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

There was no president of Iran assassinated in 1950.

This is the bio of the Prime Minister:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mosaddeq

The reason I am including all these links is that they are interesting reading. There were assassination and coup attempts; the Communists were deeply involved; not to mention all the problems that took place during World War II with Hitler and the Soviets.
 
Roselle said:
With the mysterious explosions at Iran’s in the process of being built nuclear facilities, saw that the Ayatollah is putting military forces on a war footing. Tensions are rising.

“Cry Havoc And Let Slip The Dogs Of War?”

blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/12/05/cry-havoc-and-let-slip-the-dogs-of-war/

From the article
Click to expand...
One possibility I think we should all consider, as far as the instigators/bankrollers of these explosions goes, would be Saudi Arabia. They’ve bankrolled terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why not in Iran? It’s in THEIR interest to see Iran and the US go to war.
 
colmywaykurtz said:
One possibility I think we should all consider, as far as the instigators/bankrollers of these explosions goes, would be Saudi Arabia. They’ve bankrolled terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why not in Iran? It’s in THEIR interest to see Iran and the US go to war.
Click to expand...
Good evening, colmywaykurtz,

To my understanding, both the Saudis and Iranians are Shia Muslims. So, in that regard, your scenario doesn’t make sense.

God loves you,
Don
 
donsnow said:
Good evening, colmywaykurtz,

To my understanding, both the Saudis and Iranians are Shia Muslims. So, in that regard, your scenario doesn’t make sense.

God loves you,
Don
Click to expand...
With all due respect, Don, you’d better check your sources again. Saudi Arabia is a majority SUNNI nation. Iran is one of only three nations on earth with majority Shiite populations—Iran, Iraq, and Qatar.

Insofar as the two are the most powerful and influential of Gulf states, and insofar as one presents itself as the exemplar of Sunni orthodoxy and the other the exemplar of Shiite orthodoxy, they are natural political enemies. Saudi Arabia would love nothing more than to see the US invade Iran. Egypt, Jordan and Turkey wouldn’t be far behind them in loving every minute of it.
 
Okay, folks, yesterday I contacted my congressman’s office and got the skinny: To view the current bill, google House Foreign Affairs Committee, then click “hearings”, then then find the Nov 2 hearing and ANS to HR 1905, . If you click on that, this is what comes up, with the amendment put in by Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, the Chairman of the committee:

foreignaffairs.house.gov/112/ROSLEH_091_xml.pdf

And there it is, under section 601c, an amendment

No person employed with the United States Government may contact
18 in (sic) an official or unofficial capacity any person that—
19 (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of,
20 is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of
21 the Government of Iran; and
22 (2) presents a threat to the United States or is
23 affiliated with terrorist organizations.

This severely restricts our chances of reconciliation with Iran, and with other organization, for that matter, even though section d allows for a 15-day waiver. Who is it, besides those whose sole formula is violence, would promote such a bill? Is our nation composed mainly of Christ-followers, or are we not? Why would we stifle communication?

Let’s get away from the battles over history, and discuss the point at hand! If you agree with me, contact your congressman!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top