United We Stand- HoR 412-12 vote on Iranian sanctions

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hX04BzCuerC5MMIN7szQ0UWsfEuwD9CK1M280

WASHINGTON — The House voted Tuesday to impose new economic sanctions on Iran as lawmakers cast doubt on Iran's willingness to respond to diplomatic efforts to curtail its purported nuclear arms program.


The legislation, approved 412-12, would end access to U.S. markets for foreign companies selling refined petroleum products to Iran or helping that country develop its petroleum capacity. While Iran is a major crude oil producer, its lack of ability to produce enough gasoline and other refined petroleum products is a major economic vulnerability.


With no Senate action on the legislation expected this year, the House vote was for the time being mainly a warning that the United States is ready to act on its own if the Tehran government doesn't respond to current international efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.


The bill drew opposition from lawmakers who said it would mainly cause hardship among poor and middle-class Iranians.


Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, said the Barack Obama administration was "entering a critical period of intense diplomacy to impose significant international pressure on Iran." Sanctions legislation "might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts," Steinberg's letter said.


House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif., said Iran has had ample time to respond to President Obama's efforts at engagement. "President Obama has offered Iran an outstretched hand, but regrettably, Iran has not unclenched its fist."


Hitting Iran in one of its weakest areas could be "the last best hope for diplomatically ending Iran's nuclear weapons program," said Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.


U.S. officials say Iran has already stockpiled enough uranium to produce one nuclear weapon, said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee. International diplomacy has proved to be a mirage, she said. "we must use the limited time remaining to impose sanctions so painful that they should threaten the Iranian regimes survival."


Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, a leading critic of the bill, said it would antagonize the many Iranian people who oppose the Tehran government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "We're telling the Iranian people, 'we have feelings of friendship for you. we like you so much, but we're going to cut off your home heating oil.'"


"This will unify the Iranian people against us," said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.
U.S. petroleum exports to Iran are already banned under past sanctions. But the National Foreign Trade Council and its affiliate, USA Engage, expressed concern that a U.S. company that has business dealings with a foreign firm involved in Iran's energy sector could face sanctions.


Also on Tuesday, the State Department said it planned to waive provisions of existing sanctions against Iran to allow Iranians to download free, mass-market software used in e-mail, instant messaging and social networking.


The department said sanctions "are having an unintended chilling effect on the ability of companies such as Microsoft and Google to continue providing essential communications tools to ordinary Iranians."


Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., welcomed the move: "Much of what we know about the regime's repression has come from firsthand accounts by Iranian citizens, distributed via Internet tools such as YouTube and Twitter," he said.


The bill is H.R. 2194.


a 412 to 12 vote is an almost complete blowout. if you do not know, the HoR is based on population. This usually means a someone representation of the millions of Americans.

the bill ofcourse must pass the senate which has exactly 2 people from each state.


I am glad that something is happening on the matter and isnt left to simple "talks"
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Sanctions almost never work. All they do is galvanize support for the regime. What needs to be done is Iran has to be shown that developing nuclear weapons is not in it's best interests. Sanctions didn't stop South Africa from pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The threat of annihilation did.

Secondly, we need to show concrete proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. So far, all we have is conjecture and innuendo. It's basically the Iraq War buildup coming back to haunt us. We cried wolf so hard at Iraq that now no one believes us.

Finally, we need to honor the commitment to a nuclear free Middle East. Just about every US president has said this. However, when Israel can basically flaunt it's nuclear weapons without any penalty in the face of this declaration, it makes the declaration look weak and pathetic. All it says to nations is that signing the NPT is the worst decision you can make. A non-signor to the NPT is basically free from sanctions/inspections and is free to develop whatever nuclear technology it please. A signor to the NPT is subject to sanctions and inspections and cannot develop any nuclear technology without massive involvement from foreign powers. If I was the leader of any country, I'd be working very hard to remove my country from being party of the NPT.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
I disagree.

We need to enable the people of Iran, so they can do what they want to do, and take out their Government.

Or, figure a way to take out the Government, allowing the people to take over.

There's no time like now, if we have people in Iran, for them to reck havock, and let loose the dogs of war.

-John
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
I disagree.

We need to enable the people of Iran, so they can do what they want to do, and take out their Government.

Or, figure a way to take out the Government, allowing the people to take over.

There's no time like now, if we have people in Iran, for them to reck havock, and let loose the dogs of war.

-John

Your post makes no sense. There's almost no support in Iran to overthrow the entire government. Even the reform candidates have continually espoused preserving the Islamic Republic.

Second, a war with Iran will do the US as much harm as it does to Iran. Just taking that much oil off the market will send prices skyrocketing. Add in a few blown up supertankers and the entire thing can blow up in our face. We don't have the manpower to occupy a country like Iran. Sure we can blow up it's airforce and navy, but what does that accomplish? It just makes them even more determined to get nuclear weapons. Remember, we built the major nuclear facilities at Natanz and Busher back in the Cold War when the Shah was our buddy. They are built to withstand Russian nuclear bunker busters. Unless we are ready to resort to nuclear weapons to destroy those facilities, I doubt we would have the capability to destroy those facilities.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
I don't know if you are just playing with me, but I have seen plenty of vids that say the Iranian People are willing to overthrow their Government. The most recent of which were less than three months ago, when the "Greens" were killed left and right in the street, and Obama did nothing.

-John
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Dumb idea that is basically going to leave Iran business to Russian and Chinese companies.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Finally, we need to honor the commitment to a nuclear free Middle East. Just about every US president has said this. However, when Israel can basically flaunt it's nuclear weapons without any penalty in the face of this declaration, it makes the declaration look weak and pathetic. All it says to nations is that signing the NPT is the worst decision you can make. A non-signor to the NPT is basically free from sanctions/inspections and is free to develop whatever nuclear technology it please. A signor to the NPT is subject to sanctions and inspections and cannot develop any nuclear technology without massive involvement from foreign powers. If I was the leader of any country, I'd be working very hard to remove my country from being party of the NPT.

That`s pure BS!!! Israel has never ever admited to having nuclear weapons. But for the sake of argument even if they did, they have never ever flaunted the fact.....

You are out od your league discussing Israel`s nuclear or possibly even lack of nuclear capability!!
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
Finally, we need to honor the commitment to a nuclear free Middle East. Just about every US president has said this. However, when Israel can basically flaunt it's nuclear weapons without any penalty in the face of this declaration, it makes the declaration look weak and pathetic. All it says to nations is that signing the NPT is the worst decision you can make. A non-signor to the NPT is basically free from sanctions/inspections and is free to develop whatever nuclear technology it please. A signor to the NPT is subject to sanctions and inspections and cannot develop any nuclear technology without massive involvement from foreign powers. If I was the leader of any country, I'd be working very hard to remove my country from being party of the NPT.


First of all, this thread is about Iran. stop bringing in Israel into the equation.

secondly, Israel has undeclared nukes. that alone keeps some of the powerhouses of the middle east away from Israel.

Israel is not irresponsible with them. this is why no one is going after them (if they even have it)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
That`s pure BS!!! Israel has never ever admited to having nuclear weapons. But for the sake of argument even if they did, they have never ever flaunted the fact.....

You are out od your league discussing Israel`s nuclear or possibly even lack of nuclear capability!!

Jedi, cute icon.

But on your point, I think he was using flaunt differently than you.

Israel has never denied having nuclear weapons after a certain point in time. Independant experts say they have quite a few, and Israel never challenges this. That's not flaunting to you.

But compare it to other nations like Iran, who has been pressured to say over and over for years not only that they don't have any but that they don't want them and are not tring to get any.

To Iranians who are constantly under threat of attack if not war over an alleged nuclear program their government denies, the Israeli 'neither confirm nor deny' without any such pressure is 'flaunting'.

Clearly there us a double standard for Israel, who is not pressured to allow IEAE inspections to confirm the ave no weapons, not threatened with sanctions and attaxk if they don'tl allow inspectors.

To the person who said 'don't bring up Israel, this is about Iran', that's ridiculous. It's be like the police meeting with the crips to ask them to give up weapons and saying 'don't bring up the bloods'.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
The reps who voted against this should be ashamed of themselves.
Not my position at this time. I wouldn't oppose the sanctions in a different situation, but not this one which is a mindless pressure to preserve an unstable situation abusing our economic power.

Of course, how many voted agains the Iraq war?

I recall therre being one vote only Barbara Lee voted no on. She was attacked too.

The herd mentality for war and other aggression is all too easy to occur.

Sanctions are nice in theory as a non-violent alternative to war, but problematic in practice when economic power has nothing to do with being 'right' and is used for dubious agendas as a weapon to simply get your way right or wrong. There's also the issue of how they hurt a lot of innocent people often without any benefit but making the sanctioners 'feel good'.
 
Last edited:

Woofmeister

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,385
1
76
Jedi, cute icon.

But on your point, I think he was using flaunt differently than you.

Israel has never denied having nuclear weapons after a certain point in time. Independant experts say they have quite a few, and Israel never challenges this. That's not flaunting to you.

But compare it to other nations like Iran, who has been pressured to say over and over for years not only that they don't have any but that they don't want them and are not tring to get any.

To Iranians who are constantly under threat of attack if not war over an alleged nuclear program their government denies, the Israeli 'neither confirm nor deny' without any such pressure is 'flaunting'.

Clearly there us a double standard for Israel, who is not pressured to allow IEAE inspections to confirm the ave no weapons, not threatened with sanctions and attaxk if they don'tl allow inspectors.

To the person who said 'don't bring up Israel, this is about Iran', that's ridiculous. It's be like the police meeting with the crips to ask them to give up weapons and saying 'don't bring up the bloods'.

There is no "double standard for Israel." Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-NWS party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

A non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.
Israel (like India and Pakistan) long ago refused to sign the NNPT and is therefore exempt from any of its provisions.

If you've got a problem with countries not signing the NNPT, you'd be better off focusing your efforts on Pakistan--a known nuclear weapons proliferator.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
There is no "double standard for Israel." Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-NWS party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Israel (like India and Pakistan) long ago refused to sign the NNPT and is therefore exempt from any of its provisions.

If you've got a problem with countries not signing the NNPT, you'd be better off focusing your efforts on Pakistan--a known nuclear weapons proliferator.

The double standard involving Israel not signing doesn't make it not a double standard - it's part of it.

I can agree with you on Pakistan without it changing anything about the Israel-Iran double standard.
 

mjquilly

Golden Member
Jun 12, 2000
1,692
0
76
I was just thinking this as well. Who were the twelve idiots who voted against this?

2 of the "idiots":

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, a leading critic of the bill, said it would antagonize the many Iranian people who oppose the Tehran government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "We're telling the Iranian people, 'we have feelings of friendship for you. we like you so much, but we're going to cut off your home heating oil.'"

"This will unify the Iranian people against us," said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.
 

Woofmeister

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,385
1
76
The double standard involving Israel not signing doesn't make it not a double standard - it's part of it.

I can agree with you on Pakistan without it changing anything about the Israel-Iran double standard.

Wait, so Israel refusing to sign a treaty (something that all sovereign states are entitled to do) is the same thing as Iran breaking a treaty it signed and received benefits from?

That sounds more like a double standard on your end.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Wait, so Israel refusing to sign a treaty (something that all sovereign states are entitled to do) is the same thing as Iran breaking a treaty it signed and received benefits from?

That sounds more like a double standard on your end.

What benefits do you receive from the NPT? To me, it sounds like a crock of shit. Sign this piece of paper and forsake nuclear technology forever. Meanwhile, your enemy, who didn't sign the piece of paper, yea he's free to develop any nuclear technology he wants.

It's a crock of shit, if I was any nation, I'd pull out of that treaty ASAP. What good is the treaty if it doesn't stop nuclear proliferation?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I was just thinking this as well. Who were the twelve idiots who voted against this?

Well, Ron Paul might qualify. The idiots who voted for it are many more.

It didn't take long to google the 12 no votes:

Baldwin Blumenauer Conyers Duncan Flake Hinchey Kucinich Lynch McDermott Moore (WI) Paul Stark

I was a bit surprised to see Barbara Lee voted 'present'. My Congressman, Pete Stark, voted no.

Other liberals voted yes - like Alan Grayson. They were split. A no vote is probably very danaging for most.
 

Woofmeister

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,385
1
76
What benefits do you receive from the NPT? To me, it sounds like a crock of shit. Sign this piece of paper and forsake nuclear technology forever. Meanwhile, your enemy, who didn't sign the piece of paper, yea he's free to develop any nuclear technology he wants.

It's a crock of shit, if I was any nation, I'd pull out of that treaty ASAP. What good is the treaty if it doesn't stop nuclear proliferation?

The NNPT allows for the free exchange of peaceful nuclear technology and research with non-NWS parties. It was a very good deal for underdeveloped countries (like Iran at the time) that couldn't possibly develop nuclear energy on their own.

All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Certain non-nuclear weapon states, because they perceived a threat from their neighbors that could only be defended with nuclear weapons, refused to sign the NNPT, foregoing its benefits in order to allow themselves the opportunity to develop nuclear weapons.

Nobody held a gun to the head of the non-NWS states to force them to sign the NNPT. They did so presumably because it was in their own interests at the time.

Also Iran could leave the NNPT by giving formal notice but has not done so.

So, it is a double standard to mention Israel's undeclared but completely legal nuclear weapons in the same breath as Iran's violations of the NNPT.