digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

globalresearch.ca — 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.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BishkekBuddy, on 06/19/2008, -27/+238This must be stopped! Call your Representatives! Call your Senators! We must not go to war with Iran!! And as we all know, if we give Bush & Co an inch....
    • OC73, on 06/19/2008, -56/+12Wow, a member of Digg sides with Iran and gets dugg up. SHOCKER!
      • gardnert1, on 06/19/2008, -4/+45If the US provokes war with Iran then I will likely end up fighting it. Will you? No? Then shut the ***** up.
        • akamurph, on 06/19/2008, -24/+4Really? Did they bring the draft back? I didn't know that... if you joined the military than that's your ***** job!!!
        • Parapadrifter, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4It's the military's job to defend America and her constitution, not fight for this crony empire! Neo-cons need to be brought down!!
      • Disgod, on 06/19/2008, -3/+25You're a ***** idiot, he's not siding with Iran, he's against Bush starting a THIRD ***** WAR in 7 years. Bush needs a psych exam to see if he's fit to command a Dairy Queen let alone this country.

        Oh and guess what if you care about gas prices, you should be against any aggression against Iran, any instability in the middle east is going to cause the price of oil to go up. Iran is also has a hell of a lot better army than Iraq, so it isn't going to be a quick and easy invasion like Iraq, we'll have to fight it tooth and nail, and then if we win we'll have to deal with a clean up probably worse than Iraq. Plus it is entirely plausible that other middle east countries could retaliate by dropping oil exports or putting an embargo on the US. We shouldn't do this, we can't do this for economic reasons alone. Let alone the fact the military is already at it's breaking point from Iraq and Afghanistan. The US acting with impunity has already severely damaged our economy, this will just destroy us.
      • m2garand, on 06/19/2008, -4/+20Ahh, the "Your with us or your against us" smear. "Us" being the federal government. To OC73 it is not possible that people may not support Iran but also don't want to go to war with Iran.

        The reality is there is no evidence Iran has a nuclear program and no evidence if they did have one that they would commit suicide by attacking the US. Iran has virtually no military and doesn't pose a slightest threat to the US. None of this matters to assholes like OC73, he is just another ignorant, *****, neocon that thinks he is some kind of tough guy because he promotes the government's unjustified wars.
      • nakani, on 06/19/2008, -2/+7I see OC73 is flexing those new skills he learned in formal logic class at college /s
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/20/2008, -1/+7It's funny how people like you think that are the most patriotic Americans who think America is #1 and support the American Empire. You obviously have no knowledge of what ideals this country was founded on, nor have you read the writings of the Founders and Framers.
        If you were born in Mexico, you would be shouting that Mexico is #1. What you are really saying is that you are #1.
        Were would you get your self esteem from if you lived in some small non-infuencial country? If you had any real self esteem, you wouldn't be a raging nationalist. But ignorant people tend to have low self esteem. Ignorant people tend to live in fear.
        I bet that you didn't even read down this far......
      • PongGod, on 06/20/2008, -2/+8Wow, a neocon member of Digg feigns surprise over others digging an article in support of sane foreign policy!
    • paradexes, on 06/19/2008, -14/+55The Nazi....errr NeoCon war machine is in full swing. Bush has effectively turned this nation in the the 21st century equivalent of what the Germans were in the early 20th Century. Look it up. There are an awful lot of parallels there. Reichstag fire/911, spreading military over vast territories/ Iraq and Iran among other areas. Bush family involvement in both WW2, And post 9/11 US. The parallels are a little too much. Conspiracy theorists and 9/11 truthers likely nailed about 90 percent of this one.
      • MaxterICC, on 06/19/2008, -34/+8you're an idiot
        • caferrell, on 06/19/2008, -4/+5Could you elucidate on that? Why do you think that he is an idiot? Do you know him personally or are you so agile of mind that you can make that kind of judgement based on what he said?

          What part leaves you certain that Bishkek is retarded? Because he wants to stop war with Iran? Well, then I suppose that I am an idiot too.
          Because he thinks that our representatives might listen to us? Hmmmmmmm. Maybe he is an idiot after all
        • gn0stik, on 06/20/2008, -3/+4caferrell because he started his argument by using the word Nazi.

      • Tomchei, on 06/19/2008, -17/+10You could call it the Jews revenge because that's exactly what this is.
        Not all Jews are bad but these American meddling ones are dangerous.
        • klasikahl, on 06/19/2008, -13/+4You need serious psychiatric counseling.
        • Tomchei, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2For what??

          The Neo Cons are the 'Jewish Conservatives' and Christian Right (that believe that Jews are gods chosen people) that are in line with the protection if Israel over the United States.
          The Jews are throwing propaganda to say we are safer when we are not, not even from our own government.
          The Jews are the ones saying that Iran is saber rattling when they are not. They want us to go to war so that Israel doesn't have to deal with Iran.
      • triad203, on 06/19/2008, -6/+2GODWOWNED.
      • gquaglia, on 06/20/2008, -7/+4Yeah because Bush is gassing innocent people and cremating them in secret death camps. maybe you should have payed attention in school and laid off the pot.
        • EllimistX, on 06/20/2008, -5/+7No, but he is torturing innocent prisoners and hiding them from the red cross...
        • soupdawg30, on 06/20/2008, -3/+2Innocent?
        • Becca4RonPaul, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Well, hard to know whether they're innocent or not when they aren't even entitled to any sort of legal recourse. And when cash rewards are offered for turning in suspected "terrorists" in a country like Afghanistan with such deeply-divided factions, where someone can walk away with hundreds of dollars just by pointing the finger at someone else (usually based on rivalry between clans or political parties). Nice. See, we went in there with such audacity and ignorance that we swept up all kinds of men on all kinds of dodgy pretexts, and then kept them cooped up for YEARS and denied them any right to challenge their confinement in any way. Sick, stupid. See the article "Guantanimo--Beyond the Law"--http://digg.com/politics/GUANTANAMO_Beyond_the_Law ... (see front page articles--political news)

          Besides, in answer to your comment, "Innocent?", you know, historically, we have proceeded on a little assumption known as "innocent until proven guilty"? But if you take away every mechanism whereby guilt or innocence can even be rightly established on the basis of EVIDENCE before an impartial judge or jury, you have completely suspended justice. So, yeah, I regard these guys as innocent until proven otherwise. And considering the fact that of all those detained at Gitmo, only 1% have had any formal charges brought against them, this is an outrageous miscarriage of justice.

          I find it INCREDIBLE how the Bush administration and the complicit mass media have so successfully programmed people into an unquestioned eagerness to regard ANYONE labelled a "terrorist suspect" as in fact a terrorist without any proof whatsoever--"damn ragheads! We should kill them all! They all want to kill us you know! They deserve what they get! Waterboarding--hell yeah!! They should get even worse!!" It's moving us closer and closer to dynamics at work in all totalitarian regimes. The state says that you are a terrorist / traitor / sabateur--so you ARE. No proof required. Accusation = guilt. Off to the gulag you go.

          What happened to the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven? This is sick. This government is in the process of cutting us free from every mooring of historic justice which has set us apart from other nations and made us a beacon to humanity. God help us. Don't think citizens are immune. Read Patriot Act 1 and 2 and Military Commissions of 2006. If the President or any other higher-up claims you are a terrorist or "unlawful enemy combatant" (for ANY reason whatsoever, without any evidential requirements), then you are STRIPPED OF YOUR CITIZENSHIP and all the rights pertaining thereto. And the definition of a "terrorist" is "anyone who breaks any law of any nation" and / or "threatens human life." So a citizen can be framed up for ANY alleged "crime," and accused of somehow (according to whatever convoluted reasoning) "threatening human life." Wow. THAT is unbridled and unprincipled power--the kind our Founders tried to avoid when they penned the Constitution, of which, GW said, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper." Just a goddamned piece of paper that stands between you and me and hell on earth.
      • spankaccount, on 06/20/2008, -3/+1How old are you?
    • poidh, on 06/19/2008, -41/+6Oh shut up you pathetic adolescent. Iran has been at war with "us", and by that I mean all infidels who refuse to simply lie down and die, since 1979 (before you were born), and it was them who started it. Haven't you noticed yet?
      • revisrev, on 06/19/2008, -3/+29Yea, Iran installed a Shah in America, and then flipped out when we removed him...
      • Disgod, on 06/19/2008, -1/+24Yeah, you're an idiot you only care about the history that makes your point. It started in 1954 when the US assisted in overthrowning a LEGITIMATELY ELECTED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. We started it. The US is to blame, we supported the Shah who was a draconian evil man, on par with Saddam if not worse . Don't cherry pick history it makes you look like a ***** moron.
      • mrsteveman1, on 06/19/2008, -1/+16You never took world history eh? *****.
      • sodade, on 06/19/2008, -1/+18Please ***** educate yourself douchebag - start with 1953
      • archiesteel, on 06/19/2008, -0/+12poidh, look up "Operation Ajax" before spouting nonsense. The US and the UK started it, not Iran.
      • caferrell, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5It was Iran that armed Saddam Hussein and sent him to attack the Iranians!
    • paradexes, on 06/19/2008, -6/+47FOX news really has you brainwashed man. But since you are a NeoCon warmonger let me talk your language. Our forces are spread too thin. That alone is reason enough to forestall any kind of aggression against Iran if what you say is indeed true. We cannot go to war with them without breaking ourselves economically (taxes to fund the wars inprogress) in the process. We cannot afford it. Now if you are a Republican you are all for smaller Govt and less taxes RIGHT? Well fighting a war requires money. And that money comes from our taxes, and that also requires bigger Govt in order to manage it. Read the Art Of War by Sun Tzu. You might learn why the Bush "strategery" cannot work no matter what FOX news tells you. History is a great precedent podih. Pick up a history book sometime and you might learn something about it.

      To follow up on my bigger Govt, note how many new agencies have cropped up under Bush's regime. Homland Security, TSA, Office of accountability and a whole host more I am sure I dont know about.
      • slearwig, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6Stupid self interests waging war again.
    • Picer, on 06/19/2008, -3/+25Have the idiots have forgotten that Iran's allies China and Russia?

      • Disgod, on 06/19/2008, -2/+21Yeah, that's kinda one of those important items people constantly forget about. Iran is selling both China and Russia massive amounts of oil, which neither China or Russian can afford to lose. I doubt they would start a war or anything, but they will put as much diplomatic pressure on the US as they can, and so will pretty much the rest of the world, no one wants this war except Bush and Israel.
        • Becca4RonPaul, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4I'm not so sure the Israeli people by and large want this war, but their elected officials certainly seem to. In my experience, most Israeli people are bitterly opposed to war and take it very seriously. Don't lump all of them together by saying "Israel." That would be like saying, "the Americans are just desperate to go to war with Iran," because some powerful people within our goverment and military-industrial complex desire that.
        • toowired77, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Have you read the J-post? They have an entire section dedicated to the "Iranian threat". The Iranian people are also against their extreme government. Why not show some solidarity to a people who might very well have to live in bomb shelters for a very long time because of Bush. Fight against people that attack you, but Please stop the preventative wars. Preemption is a bad principle. Iranian mullahs use some scary language, but they have not attacked anyone. Iraq did not attack anyone. Israel is a great country with a lot of bad friends (the neo-CONS).
    • skipdog172, on 06/19/2008, -1/+21Sadly this bill already has 169 co-sponsors. Contact your congressman.

      Here is a list of the co-sponsors: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:10:./ ...

      Full text here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.R ...
      • gn0stik, on 06/19/2008, -5/+4Uh, if half the ***** listed in that bill is true, I can't NOT support it.
        • obliviousfool, on 06/20/2008, -2/+3Notice the lack of debate on the truthfulness of the statements in the bill. It is presented as if those things are foregone conclusions. Every point is debatable.
    • tidu, on 06/19/2008, -2/+14but how are we ever gonna get our oil without needlessly killing thousands of people?
      • gn0stik, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5This one's not about oil. China and Russia already have claim on that. In fact, in spite of the Iraq deal on oil today, Iraq was never about oil. It was about Iran. This is what the whole ***** thing was about. All of it. Read the bill. The oil deal in Iraq will help fuel the effort in Iran.


        Oh, and wmds... of course.
    • merky1, on 06/19/2008, -1/+16Hey, isn't congress run by a majority of those Democrats that said there were going to get our troops out of Iraq 2 years ago? I guess they'll just right another strongly worded letter to the editor after this bill passes.
      • Disgod, on 06/19/2008, -1/+8The House of Representatives has 435 members, and only 160 so far have sponsored the bill. Considering there are still around 200 Republican congressmen in the House of Representatives, this falls well within the realm of just being sponsored by Republicans mostly. Plus it hasn't passed yet, and I hope the Democrats squash this bill flat
        • chukd, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4Do you have the ability to read. It was originally sponsored by a Democrat and a Republican. Try to spin this as much as you want but this is something from both parties. Why don't you pull your head out from the covers and notice what is going on in your country. Both parties are at fault. Stop blaming only one side.
        • Disgod, on 06/19/2008, -6/+3So, you lost your ability to read as well, cuz guess what I was responding to, if you didn't notice what he said I'll let you know. HE BLAMED THE DEMOCRATS. Oh and after I posted that I did look up the numbers, and shockingly enough there are a hell of a lot more Republicans sponsoring that bill than democrats. So I can blame the Republicans because they have done more than the democrats to ***** this country up, at the same time the democrats are partially to blame and I recognize that, but they are the lesser evil.
        • chukd, on 06/20/2008, -0/+6Talk about jaded. They are both at fault, there is no lesser of the evils. They are both at fault, they both do things wrong. One may start actions but the other side lets them do it instead of stopping the stupidity. Why don't they stop it? Because they want to use it against them to gain power. There is no lesser evil.
    • homah, on 06/19/2008, -1/+11Disgusting. This is on the suspension calendar, which means this is supposedly a NONCONTROVERSIAL bill!
      • gn0stik, on 06/19/2008, -8/+1That's because everyone knows full well that what's listed in the bill is not controversial. It's all proven common knowledge. Really it all boils down to is it enough? Is their relationship with Hamas/Hezbollah, and their nuclear proliferation enough to do something serious about? Are we willing to let nukes get into the hands of terrorists potentially, and hope they do nothing with them? Or will they use them like they did the rockets?
        • Disgod, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5Actually it's been proven that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program.
        • homah, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Even if all the whereas stuff is true (a big if based on everything I've read, but let's assume for a moment it is all 100% true), doesn't this warrant more than 20 minutes of discussion before being passed? Shouldn't possible amendments be discussed? This isn't like a resolution congratulating the Celtics on winning the NBA championship, it is much more important and warrants a longer discussion before a vote.
        • sealbeater, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3Iran isn't even doing anything illegal as far as the nuclear stuff goes. Everything they've done as been consistent with their obligations under the NPT.
        • phrenzy, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Jesus Christ, in 2008, people STILL think like this??

        • gn0stik, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Look, just because Iraq was a farce, does not necessarily mean that Iran is not a threat. I agree we shouldn't be in Iraq. However, Iran has been rattling sabers at us, and has denies multiple attempts at investigation by the IAEA. Whoever said that it has been proven that they have no Weapons program is full of *****.

          If he truly has no plans on anything, he can do what Gadaffi did. Say, hey, here's everything we have. Check it all out, make sure we're up to snuff. Now can we build a power plant up in this bitch?

          And France will come hook them up. But he can't keep enforcing the image that he wants to destroy Israel, and support terror if he does not, just so he looks cool to the rest of the middle east. That's a dangerous game.


          ... And yes, it definitely deserves more than a 20 minute conversation.

          We cannot completely let our guard down, just because we ***** up Iraq. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE we ***** up Iraq. That's all I'm saying.
      • thaddeusj, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2How does one determine the bill's scheduling. The only actions shown by the LOC that I can find are that it was referred to committee.

        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:1:./t ...
    • LastVisibleDog, on 06/20/2008, -2/+2These bills come from the democRAT controlled congress (nit wit)
    • RufeKlug, on 06/20/2008, -4/+2You are all idiots. This is a RESOLUTION. Resolutions are not bills. Allow me to give you an example as to what a House resolution means:

      "Today the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution stating that chocolate tastes good."
      • Becca4RonPaul, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2But this is leading us somewhere . . . to war with Iran, namely. Didn't the GULF OF TONKIN *RESOLUTION* officially start war with North Vietnam?! Helloo!!! The government does not issue Constitutional declarations of war--it pulls stunts like this one that land us in deep *****. We should be VERY concerned about this.
    • IKORKYI, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2NO WE CAN'T STOP THIS! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND AT ALL!!?!?

      Ok, its complicated, but here's the short of it:

      Its kind of like battleship... you keep attacking random spots in the middle east until you "get a hit"
  • FrankHope, on 06/19/2008, -19/+154Just what AIPAC ordered. Yes Master, anything else this evening? Would you like a few thousand cruise missiles with that blockade?

    From the article:
    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.
    • rald84, on 06/19/2008, -15/+1an act of war? hot diggity!
    • OC73, on 06/19/2008, -42/+6Look at that, an Iran apologist full of jew-hating conspiracies. Another rare sight on Digg.
      • evil-doer, on 06/19/2008, -2/+17yes, shout down the truth with your name calling
      • revisrev, on 06/19/2008, -2/+21If AIPAC leaned on congress for a blockade of Hawaii it would most likely happen.
        • klasikahl, on 06/19/2008, -21/+3Both revisrev and evil-doer's comments are indicative of the ignorant anti-Semitism that runs rampant on Digg. This is absolutely disgusting. You're no different than the skin-heads and the Germans who lamented Jews as the reason why their country struggled post WWI.
        • janne1, on 06/19/2008, -0/+20What is anti-Semitic about calling AIPAC what it is? AIPAC is the opposite of religious Judaism which is AGAINST killing.
        • WiseWeasel, on 06/19/2008, -2/+17***** off, klasikahl! Not wanting to use our resources for the interests of Israel is not the same thing as antisemitism against Jews, as compelling as that argument might seem to you. I wouldn't fight for British interests, nor would I fight for Israels; nothing against the people of either countries, and that's why I bury the posts of sociopaths like you and digg up those who suggest NOT antagonizing Iran. Israel needs to take care of their own problems, and the US has its own set of huge issues to deal with at the moment. It's not in my interest as a US citizen to support this bill, so I will deride it and its supporters. You're going to have to do a bit better than accusing people of antisemitism to convince me that it actually IS in my interests.
        • archiesteel, on 06/19/2008, -0/+7klasikahl, playing the race card that way really lacks class. AIPAC is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington - that's not an opinion, that's a fact. It's also obvious that AIPAC is behind this bill. There's *nothing* anti-semitic about saying this.
        • Belin, on 06/19/2008, -2/+3The US has already blockaded Hawaii once.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hawaii

          Look under the part with the heading "Overthrow"
      • erasedgod, on 06/19/2008, -2/+8Yeah, I get all my conspiracy theories directly from the AIPAC website. You've got to be kidding me.
      • sodade, on 06/19/2008, -2/+13I don't hate Jews at all. Have lots of Jewish friends, but I am starting to hate Israel. Why do we fight their wars?
      • nycmac247, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1-
    • gardnert1, on 06/19/2008, -0/+13Here's the full text of the res.: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/hc362_ih.xml

      "(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;"
    • Stormwern, on 06/19/2008, -1/+7Nuclear proliferation without a nuclear program..

      This is really not a constructive idea, if Hamas is a problem then we should deal with Hamas, not go for the country funding them. If we block iran they will simply get their funding from some other shia country, like Syria.
      • AugustusOsari, on 06/20/2008, -3/+1You're an idiot. This isn't about that at all. This is about Israel not liking non-pro-Israeli countries around it.
    • Hangly, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4I never expected much from the democrats, but where the ***** is the rest of the world here?

      France, Russia, Japan and China trade extensively with Iran. Are they just going to watch again as the US gobbles up the last major oil producer in the Middle East?

      Most major wars started over much smaller offenses.
    • beatpre, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5Smells like...Pelosi!!!! Sorry, a few people brought her up further down as having some ties to the AIPAC, but this article was too good to pass up.

      http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3320428, ...

  • girwen, on 06/19/2008, -7/+57There's a companion bill in the senate

    Quick link to e-mail your senator http://tinyurl.com/6kxrcb

    and your representative http://tinyurl.com/6cm9ed
    • trakie, on 06/19/2008, -1/+17Really guys, follow those links and fill them out and write a short message to your representative. Takes about 5mins and is much better than even just digging this article. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but I still think the system can work, just needs the right amount of effort by the people.
    • DreKor, on 06/19/2008, -1/+8FTA: "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."

      Yeah, that sounds like it's really picking up steam.
      • trakie, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3congress.org reports from girwen above indicate senate has 27 so far and house has 169...
    • OC73, on 06/19/2008, -17/+2Thanks for the links. I just emailed to tell them they have my support to take whatever military action is necessary against Iran.
    • avonalt, on 06/19/2008, -5/+2Senate resolution 580 is a lot more sane.
      The resolutions:
      Resolved, That the Senate--

      (1) declares that preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is a matter of the highest importance to the national security of the United States and must be dealt with urgently;

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

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

      (B) international banks that continue to conduct financial transactions with sanctioned Iranian banks;

      (C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the petroleum or national gas sector of the economy of Iran in any given year since the date of the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note); and

      (D) companies that continue to do business with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran;

      (3) demands that the President lead an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the pressure on the Government of Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, among other measures, banning the importation of refined petroleum products to Iran; and

      (4) asserts that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of force against Iran.

      Resolution 3 is a lot more tame and resolution 4 explicitly bans to the use of force.
    • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5To be fair, the senate version does not have the "blockade" clause and it also says: "nothing in this resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of force against Iran".
    • drunkmonkey01, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5thanks for links
    • cm32438, on 06/19/2008, -0/+7Sent letters opposing both bills, here's hoping that more people are willing to get invovled even the slightest bit
  • jaymzdean, on 06/19/2008, -11/+105The measures called for in the resolutions amount to taking Iran's sovereignty.
    This will force Iran into war with the U.S.
    Just what AIPAC ordered.
    http://www.aipac.org/694.asp#1007

    • Erich100, on 06/19/2008, -8/+18Didn't the US do basically the same thing to get Japan to attack Pearl Harbor?
      • Barackalypse, on 06/19/2008, -3/+9No, if we had done a naval blockade of Japan, there wouldn't have been many ships in Pearl Harbor to attack, as they would have all been enforcing the blockade.
        • Hangly, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3Yes, it was called the ABCD Line and was enforced by America, China, Britain, and the Dutch.

          Jesus man, Wikipedia is just a few clicks away.
      • phrenzy, on 06/19/2008, -0/+9That was an oil embargo (irony) - But to do that to an Island nation like Japan is tantamount to a blockade. Regardless, people have claimed that the administration was getting ready to conduct a full blockade just before Pearl Harbor.
    • Barackalypse, on 06/19/2008, -6/+1I doubt that, it might force them to seriously negotiate their nuclear program though. Direct war with the United States, given we have the military assets to obliterate them sitting next door in Iraq would be madness. They've already seen us depose two regimes in the last 10 years, I doubt they want to be the third.
      • archiesteel, on 06/19/2008, -0/+13Iran is much bigger than Iraq, and it's population would *not* welcome Americans as liberators. If you though a weakened Iraq was tough, then watch out trying to invade Iran.
        • Barackalypse, on 06/20/2008, -3/+2What if I learned my lesson in Iraq and decided I wasn't going to occupy the country at all? What if I just use my air superiority to sink every ship, destroy every airplane, and bomb whatever military and nuclear infrastructure I want? You can't conduct nuclear research very effectively when your communications network is destroyed, your leadership is shuttling itself between bunkers trying to stay out the ones we're flattening, and every suspected reactor site is a bomb crater. The Iranian people can shake their fist at my air planes all day long for all I care.
        • AugustusOsari, on 06/20/2008, -1/+0No, you can't, though mostly because your people just effectively got nuked.

          Lol Amerikkka. I hope you are tortured in the most painful ways imaginable before you die. Same goes for everyone who has ever supported any war.
        • archiesteel, on 06/20/2008, -0/+7Barackalypse, your grasp of military strategy is as weak as that of geopolitics.

          Hasn't the US already done enough damage to Iran with the anti-democratic 1953 coup?
      • Ortheos, on 06/20/2008, -0/+8If iraq cost you 3 trillion and raised oil prices to intolerable levels, then iran will cost you 10 trillion, and collapse your economy.

        Plus, they hold huge sway over hezbollah and other groups in the region and abroad. You would ignite the entire region if you attacked iran. It would be an insurgency x 100. Think vietnam.
        • Barackalypse, on 06/20/2008, -3/+1This thread was about Iran attacking the US because of a blockade. If you think a war would be expensive for the US, imagine what a war means to Iran. Look what happened to the leadership of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Iraq leadership is almost entirely dead or in prison, the Taliban is in hiding or dead. The clerics in Iran know a war with us effectively ends their rule of Iran. You can't run a country that has no love for you when you're in hiding fearing for your life, especially when one of the first things we bomb is the command and control of the military you use to keep the people that have no love for you in check.
        • Ortheos, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5Iran will be attacked whether they make the first move or not.
    • JKAL, on 06/20/2008, -0/+6American diggers please take some action to stop this, a war with Iran will not be limited to 2 countries, I do not see China or Russia sitting by the sideline and watching their huge investments go up in smoke.This will affect the entire world.
  • kemp34, on 06/19/2008, -18/+114Same thing Roosevelt did to Japan to induce an attack during WWII. The only thing is, Japan was committing other aggressions that could at least be used to justify a U.S. blockade. Iran, whose east and west neighbors are occupied by U.S. forces (one for oil/gold, the other to ensure smooth opium trade), is now facing a potential Israeli proxy war via the U.S. in spite of the fact that our own intelligence summary stated that the country stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. People, our government is acting wholly belligerent. This needs to stop.
    • Stormwern, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2Opium?
      • jscozzari, on 06/19/2008, -0/+7yes please
      • drgmdp, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4opium --> heroin
      • Becca4RonPaul, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2kemp34 makes a good point there. Easy to google around and get some solid facts on it. ; )
    • pajeff2, on 06/19/2008, -20/+2This is too easy on Iran, we should take these bastards out !!
    • FTWmovin2canada, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5Actually I think that was an embargo, not a blockade.
    • BESTenemy, on 06/19/2008, -2/+7 Here we go again! Another "pretaliation"!

      With rising oil prices Iran's growing too big to be bullied around. They have an oil surplus, but lack refining capacity. For a while it was alright, cause they still conducted their OPEC deals through petrodollar and could be sanctioned by having the refineries cut off. Now that they have withdrawn and equivalent of 75 billion dollars from the OPEC banks (as an example, Saddam only withdrew 10 billion back in 2000 swapping USD for Euro, which was enough to trigger economic retaliation).

      The smart thing for the Iran would be to isolate itself from Middle Eastern branch of OPEC and replace the vanishing refineries by channeling oil through Russia, that having peaked decades ago, has Southern refineries sitting idle. China and India, being interested in Russian and Iranian oil, would support the initiative. China's been conducting joint military training with Russia since the beginning of this year. India hasn't positioned itself yet, but likely will make a move.

      The chess pieces are setting into place. The game might very likely become WW3. Hopefully the last one in a 100-year old series of oil acquisition fights. Diplomatic solutions are not likely to emerge, based on the record of the Western World.
  • Frostman3D, on 06/19/2008, -17/+113Our government sucks.
    • Rustiga, on 06/19/2008, -22/+8Feel free to move?
      • revisrev, on 06/19/2008, -3/+14Maybe we'd rather help change the way it does business?
      • pintomp3, on 06/19/2008, -4/+8just make sure you don't move to a place that needs democracy brought to it.
      • FTWmovin2canada, on 06/19/2008, -1/+4Moving is my plan B if the elections don't go well.
        • rorster, on 06/19/2008, -7/+2Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Why wait for the elections?
        • Hangly, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2I hate to break this to you dude, but action against Iran will go ahead no matter who is in office.
          Do you see Obama or Pelosi opposing this?
      • sodade, on 06/19/2008, -6/+3You are unamerican
      • calantus, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4Clearly he said the American Government sucks, not America itself. Our government is NOT America.
      • Hangly, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1The Netherlands has no right of return laws, I checked.
        Moving isn't really an option.
    • Sandhog, on 06/19/2008, -6/+13So stop whining and do something about it. Or are you going to prove InfamousAtheist correct ("Don't worry, I'm sure Britney or Paris will get drunk or naked in public soon to distract everyone."). You are just as much a part of "our government" as anyone in WashDC or your state capitol.
      • Neiby, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Do what about it? We have a two party system where both parties are in on the game. Voting only seems to be marginally helpful. At best, if we get the slightly-bad guys into office instead of the really-bad guys it might delay the inevitable a bit longer, but it's never going to stop. The powers that be have a stranglehold on our country and political system. Not much short of an armed revolt is going to work, and even that wouldn't have a chance. Even mentioning it nowadays will just get you branded as a home-grown terrorist and thrown onto some prison barge somewhere, never to be seen again. (*waves to the NSA*)

        Our country has been heading in a particular direction for sometime. GWB's administration has greatly accelerated this march to madness more than I ever could have imagined. Obama might slow it down a bit, but it isn't going to stop.
    • pajeff2, on 06/19/2008, -12/+2Leave butt hole !!
  • active1x0, on 06/19/2008, -19/+4Wait - call me an idiot, but how is it the job of Congress to control our military? Can they even make the President do this?
    • DreKor, on 06/19/2008, -1/+16I think you're late for civics class.
      • active1x0, on 06/19/2008, -1/+7No, last I checked, Congress only had the ability to declare war on a foreign power. It is supposed to be the job of the Executive branch to correlate and control when and where the military goes.
    • dinostabOMG, on 06/19/2008, -0/+24Well, the Constitution also specifies that only Congress can declare war. But so much for that.
    • DooM, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3It's a moot point since it's clear that the President WANTS to do this - they won't have to twist his arm, I'm sure. I just don't get this at all.
    • Disgod, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4Congress is definitely NOT "making" Bush do this. He's the idiot who has been forcing the issue.
    • WiseWeasel, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3The argument is moot because the president WANTS to do this as soon as he gets a chance, as he's been saying during his tour of Europe. This is just political theater to demonstrate that he has the support of our terrible, terrible legislature.
  • InfamousAtheist, on 06/19/2008, -8/+98More war, more money, more control over the people. Don't worry, I'm sure Britney or Paris will get drunk or naked in public soon to distract everyone.
    • sphira, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1 Once upon a time people came to Planet Earth and searched for a deep, spiritual meaning to their lives. They asked profound questions of themselves and of the universe. They sought wisdom, even enlightenment. But then, some bright spark invented television and all that came to an end.
    • n0gnuz, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Preferably Paris. Britney went from being hot as hell to having to pay for sex.
  • whiterice0, on 06/19/2008, -9/+29Hey, it worked for JFK.

    Oh wait, that was an Island.

    Oh well, we'll just have to surround the entire Middle East.
    • Wilarseny, on 06/19/2008, -2/+10We're occupying two of Iran's border countries atm, and two more are pretty staunch allies... now onto Turkmenistan?
      • squickyclean, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Actually I'm almost surprised he hasn't tried to take over Equitorial Guinea, that little oil-rich African nation where one British mercenary is on trial for trying to overthrow their government. What makes this different for that little third-world hellhole not far from the equator? Could it be that Israel is not part of the formula? Just sayin'...
    • squaredUP, on 06/19/2008, -3/+14This is just a simple tactic to preserve life and spread the good news of democracy throughout the world.

      We just aren't capable of understanding because we are just regular people. Just have faith in their higher understanding and you'll see... Iran will come around after our international pissing match with bullets and bombs.
  • TitanX7, on 06/19/2008, -13/+58Bush is trying to take down the world with him!
    • bullcutter, on 06/19/2008, -2/+16well, he does believe the apocalypse is going to happen in his lifetime...
      • Sandhog, on 06/19/2008, -1/+16He doesn't just believe it. He's one of the four horsemen.
    • justz00t, on 06/19/2008, -0/+31Bush? This was done by the democrat controlled house. I mean give credit where it is due atleast.
      • revisrev, on 06/19/2008, -3/+17This was done by AIPAC... and their lapdogs in both parties.
      • diggitydoc, on 06/19/2008, -1/+5not that i like either party, but they don't really have a working majority... nor do they have enough votes to override a presidential veto....
        • justz00t, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3They have as much of a majority as republicans ever had and if they can override a veto or not really is not relevant since the point is that the democrat house passed a bill that seems to go against what they say they believe in. I dont like either party either but the digg crowd seems to like to scapegoat Bush and republicans for everything they dont like and fail to smell that democrats ***** can stink just as bad as republicans. The only difference being nobody has really smelled it for over 12 years and everybody seems not to remember what that smell is like.

          The hypocrisy of it all just kind of urks me sometimes.
        • LastVisibleDog, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Shut the f*** up - they control all leadership positions and the agenda in both the House and Senate. The point about a veto is just plan STUPID - congress created these bills - check the co-sponsors
        • diggitydoc, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1lastvisible, take your own advice and shut the ***** up. Digg will censor you for the sensitive types out there. I wasn't making excuses, i actually think that this congress has been absolutely abhorrent. All i was saying is that in general they don't have a working majority... other than a working majority that pretends they hate bush's policies but then cranks out bush-agenda ***** bills.


          justzoot - you sure about that margin in the late 90's? personally i think both parties are horrible, and really there is only one party anyway, the lobbyist party.
    • xsquirrel378x, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2As much as i despise the W, your comment and everyone digging you up shows everyones total lack of ignorance of the situation
      • elTito, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2I think "lack of understanding" is what he was going for there.

        Or "total ignorance".
    • DWalla, on 06/19/2008, -1/+4Ummm.... last time I checked CONGRESS is NOT the PRESIDENT. On top of this, Congress is currently under control the DEMOCRATS who are the ones who sponsored the bill... not the President. So pull your head out.
      • MrESaulved, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Pull your head out, it is clearly no longer a two party system, there is no difference between D and R at the National level anymore, if there ever was.

        That congress has acted in such a derelict matter is the direct issue, not their affiliations, corruption and treason obeys no party platform.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 06/20/2008, -1/+4These bills come from the democRAT controlled congress - NIT WIT!
      • diggitydoc, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1you are pretty good at not making arguments and instead attacking people... maybe you are trying to mask the fact that you are a little slow with the comprehension?

        //retard
  • wreckosaurus, on 06/19/2008, -29/+10buried as more ***** from globalresearch.ca
    • yodaj007, on 06/19/2008, -3/+9Well, when the ***** hits the fan and we find ourselves at war with Iran, we're all going to look at you and the people like you, raise our fists, and shake them angrily in your direction. "I told you so" doesn't quite cover it.
      • plainOldFool, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4But if we don't go to war with Iran, can he do the same to you???
        • yodaj007, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Touche!
        • plainOldFool, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Look, I'll be fair about this. If Bush gets all Leeeeroy Jenkins on Iran, you can definitely give me the "I told you so" lecture.
      • squaredUP, on 06/19/2008, -4/+1Nah... If my world comes crashing down around me because of people like him, I'm going to go take his ***** forcefully when I can't go buy it myself anymore. Fist shaking or whatever, in a world where the strong and rational survive he will be one of the first to go.
    • jimfeet, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6Please explain why this is *****.

      Is this or is this not a real house/senate resolution? If it is real, how can it be interpreted other than as a blockade? If it is a blockade, how can Iran be expected to react other than to view it as an act of war - after all, we're cutting off their supplies of petroleum products.

      I'm certain that if any country tried to impose the same restrictions on the US we would definitely view that as an act of aggression and take appropriate military action - action which I would fully support.

      So, please explain why this is *****.
  • carolinaws, on 06/19/2008, -10/+139So Pelosi won't consider Kucinich's articles of impeachment against Herr Bush but she will let ***** like this become law?

    Throw her ass out!
    • hotlatte, on 06/19/2008, -3/+17I so want to make a comment about Pelosi impeaching her bush, but I won't.
    • bullhead2007, on 06/19/2008, -1/+23Pelosi is obviously part of the problem.
      • merky1, on 06/19/2008, -0/+9Replace Pelosi with "the democratic party" and I think your totally right. The dems promised intelligent and responsible government, but have delivered nothing more than Republican party lite.
        • bullhead2007, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3I agree. I think it has nothing to do with party. These folks are all in bed with each other, bought and paid for by corporate fascists.
    • homah, on 06/19/2008, -0/+10Not to mention this bill is on the suspension calendar, which means there is 20 minutes of debate and no amendments can be introduced. Basically they are saying this is a noncontroversial (!) bill that should be passed without discussion.
      • PeppermintPig, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1They simply don't get it. Naval Blockade = Casus belli for Iran, and yet another undeclared war by the US.
    • rorster, on 06/19/2008, -0/+6I hate to say "I told you so", some of us have know about Pelosi being a part of the problem for decades.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/19/2008, -9/+30We have to stop this now!
    • hotlatte, on 06/19/2008, -9/+2I agree. Kucinich needs to get back to his regular job of representing the people.
  • EvansHall, on 06/19/2008, -6/+48I just called my congressman's office. He is a cosponsor. Call your congressmen!!!
    • OPR8R, on 06/19/2008, -5/+3LMAO
    • personalj, on 06/19/2008, -14/+2I'm going to mail my Congress Critter and make sure he sponsors it.
    • pajeff2, on 06/19/2008, -12/+3I called mine and told them 'GO FOR IT"
      • EvansHall, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3Hey, at least you're participating.
    • WiseWeasel, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6I guess you know who you WON'T be voting for in the next election...
      • EvansHall, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Yeah, McCain and Obama.
        • WiseWeasel, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2I meant the next *congressional* election, but yeah...
  • FrankHope, on 06/19/2008, -11/+69When the US attacks Iran, the price of oil will skyrocket. The shock to the whole world economy will be tremendous. The economic pressure on people around the world will be crippling, and will cause a rise in crime as people struggle just to survive. Countries whose economy are now just struggling to cope will see their governments collapse under the economic and social strains.

    It's called "Disaster Capitalism". Create a disaster and then profit on the suffering caused. Meanwhile the Shock suffered by the American People is exploited to manipulate them into giving up more freedoms. Not that different from how the Bush/Cheney administration treats the terrorists imprisoned in Guantanamo.

    See the video
    http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_SHOCK_Doctri ...
    • HomersHead, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5Yeah, great idea.... because the US economy is handling $140 oil so well. Have fun filling up those SUVs on $10 gas.
    • Rekutyn, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2The book is leaps and bounds better than the movie alone.
    • justz00t, on 06/19/2008, -1/+11Disaster Capitalism? I think you mean Disaster Fascism since only government has the means and a monopoly on the coercion to produce a disaster that would make businesses profit and not the free market.
    • ohnoihavenoname, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1So then if you see it coming, make the right investments beforehand. I got into oil futures just before the Iraq war, and it worked out rather well. It's not just the CEOs of giant corporations who can profit from such tactics, it's also every shareholder. If you think the price of oil is about to skyrocket, then it's not too late to get in on it.
    • gab00n, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Not only that but Bush will be President for life or at least until the "War On Terror" is over, for the greater good of course.
    • warlokaz2004, on 06/19/2008, -1/+0"When the US attacks Iran, the price of oil will skyrocket. "

      Good, then there will either be rioting in the streets, public lyncings of oil execs, or some real plans put forth to cut our fuel consumption.
      • AugustusOsari, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0I'm all for a combination of one and two.
  • fr0ng, on 06/19/2008, -16/+6Uh...what did they do again?
  • Kizilbash, on 06/19/2008, -6/+52This will lead to war pretty much inevitably.
  • Crosshare, on 06/19/2008, -31/+9Buried as more Global Research spam.
    • Disgod, on 06/19/2008, -2/+9How is it spam when it is reporting about an actual bill in Congress? If we attack Iran we will almost definitely end up in a second Great Depression. We're heading towards some bad ***** now, just imagine when the price of gas skyrockets if we go to war with Iran.
  • DaviDaviDaviD, on 06/19/2008, -8/+28I will be the first to say.. for ***** sake!
  • grungegbunny, on 06/19/2008, -22/+4Sometimes I think i'm the only one that doesn't give a flying ***** whether Iran gets the nuke or not.
    • drunkmonkey01, on 06/19/2008, -5/+2if we nuke iran radical muslims in other countries will go ***** at us. not good
      • akamurph, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Does your little digg mind really believe we would nuke iran? Expand your horizons my little digg friend, it won't happen.
        • drunkmonkey01, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1i dont really believe we will but i was commenting on grungegbunny's post.
    • WiseWeasel, on 06/19/2008, -3/+4I'm hoping they DO get it, and soon, so we can kiss and make up like we did with N. Korea. Iran might not have been developing nuclear weapons before, but we sure did everything we could to make them start...
    • touch0ph, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Why DO you care? Eight other countries besides the US have nukes and you don't seem to worried about them. Iran is not hostile towards the US but putting up a naval blockade is going to upset them. No one is actually stupid enough to attack with nuclear weapons. Let's say Iran attacks with a nuclear weapon - we could retaliate and destroy the ENTIRE country several hundred times over.
  • staxofmax, on 06/19/2008, -13/+5FTA: "H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran."

    Wait, the aim of this is to stop Iran from IMPORTING petroleum? What kind of retarded logic is that?
    • wreckosaurus, on 06/19/2008, -0/+19Iran imports a lot of gas because they lack domestic refineries, despite sitting on top of huge oil reserves.
    • plainOldFool, on 06/19/2008, -0/+5Iran has Oil. Iran does not have refined gasoline nor do they posses the ability to refine their own resources.
  • h3lx, on 06/19/2008, -4/+16Sad that it's probably going to take so much conflict and death (to get us off our asses) but until the conflict seeps through the crack of our windows and front doors, we're really not going to pay any attention to it. A conventional war with Iran would surely bring a draft.
  • xsquirrel378x, on 06/19/2008, -26/+9what else do you expect from jew lobbyists?
    • xsquirrel378x, on 06/19/2008, -7/+5good digg me down. if you want to know the worlds strongest terrorist network.

      see http://www.aipac.org/
    • revisrev, on 06/19/2008, -1/+11Is it that much harder to type "the Israel Lobby" or "Zionist Lobbyists" and avoid sounding like a racist? The only thing worse than AIPAC shills going around calling everybody who calls them out an Anti-Semite, is people who make that claim look legitimate.
  • JekJob, on 06/19/2008, -4/+42Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea.
  • dylio, on 06/19/2008, -4/+17***** Evan Bayh, he's not representing my state at all.
    • ErrorS, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3No *****, I'll vote for any Republican over this piece of *****. For all I believe in what Democrats stand for, this trumps all of it. Make me pay for my own damn healthcare before you try to take this country to war when not absolutely necessary. Cut taxes for the rich, make me pay $100 for a gallon of gasoline, drill for oil in my backyard without asking (or needing) my permission, it's all far, far less worse than thousands of our soldiers dying overseas for no good reason.
      • dylio, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4Amen. After being in D.C. all week and watching committee meetings, all I've learned is that smug arrogant senators and representatives (at least 90%+ of them) don't give a *****. The ones making law are the ones unaffected. Why should they give a ***** about our soldiers well being when it's not them being affected.
        • Parapadrifter, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I guess we should start giving them incentives.
  • trumpcard, on 06/19/2008, -26/+9Iran must be stopped at any cost.First i thought the persian ladies were sexy ,but hell no, even they are suicide bombers.
    • stonedthot, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Sometimes countries need to sort out their own problems. Though there are massive problems particuarly with women's rights and islamic laws, Iran is still the most civilised nation in the middle east and the home of civilisation, it is nothing like it is potrayed in the media. There is a strong movement for change within the country and every time there is outside interference the government finds the excuse to crack down and rile up nationalist tendancies.
      The point is that, if bombing Iran woud turn it into a nice democracy with a great human rights record, i'm sure we'd all be for it. But it just don't work that way, you just make things worse.
  • xero69, on 06/19/2008, -5/+27Expect oil prices to go up AGAIN because of stupid actions like these.
    • ohnoihavenoname, on 06/19/2008, -6/+1Then invest in oil futures and profit from it. Or complain on digg and keep hurting from it.
  • OC73, on 06/19/2008, -26/+5Good news indeed.
    • pintomp3, on 06/19/2008, -3/+11so you will be on the front lines? or are you just another chickenhawk neo-con?
      • OC73, on 06/19/2008, -10/+4Who do you think is already on the front line, a bunch of chicken ***** left wingers?
        • theloofa, on 06/19/2008, -5/+4Nope, just the bible thumping rednecks
        • WiseWeasel, on 06/19/2008, -3/+5Men who actually stand for their beliefs, and die for them, unlike the chicken-hawks such as yourself. Maybe you wouldn't be so gung-ho for war if it was your ass on the front line.
        • wadge22, on 06/19/2008, -3/+5Mostly the poor.
      • erasedgod, on 06/19/2008, -3/+4Are you kidding? This guy is too old to even be drafted. He's as much a chickenhawk as anyone I've ever seen.
  • poidh, on 06/19/2008, -20/+6Free the Iranian people from the scourge of their Islamic oppressors (and make the world a safer place, in the long term, to boot).
    • pintomp3, on 06/19/2008, -1/+7and they will greet us as liberators..
    • nbrntrt, on 06/19/2008, -3/+10Free the American people from their Christian oppressors (and make the world a safer place, in the long term, to boot)
    • Disgod, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6uhhh dude if we invade another Islamic country I can guarantee you that there will be a hell of a lot more Islamic Extremists gaining power in the world, just because people see them as an alternative to the US and it's constant wars.
    • sodade, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4You are so in need of a clue. Do you ***** have any idea what happened in 53? 79? Please go educate yourself before you speak about anything except the bible and nascar you dumbass.
    • Viend, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1If Iran gets attack, all the Shi'as will effectively side with the Sunnis, ending sectarian violence and turning against the US instead.

      Yup, liberating. /s
  • Carl306, on 06/19/2008, -7/+29Reading this makes me not so proud to be an American...

    Here's hoping it doesn't take effect. Terrible, and I mean absolutely terrible, idea.
    • ender7074, on 06/19/2008, -19/+1Reading your post makes me proud that Im not a whiny do-nothing liberal.
      • pgoetz, on 06/19/2008, -0/+8there's nothing proud about being a war-mongering piss-ant
      • calantus, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1*waits for carl to complain about oil prices two weeks after this happens*
  • Wilarseny, on 06/19/2008, -14/+10I mean, maybe I'm being naive here, but while I disagree with the intent of the resolution, I don't think it's truly as bad as the sensationalist headline and article. It calls for the president to initiate multinational efforts toward a blockade *among other things*. Remind me how this is any more drastic than what we've been pushing for in UNSC for the last few years?
    • Wilarseny, on 06/19/2008, -4/+6lol, digg me down but dont make a counterargument.. way to keep it classy, digg
    • WiseWeasel, on 06/19/2008, -2/+3Because this is our congress, who is supposed to represent US citizens, and who has the ability to declare war, not the completely powerless and unelected UNSC. If you don't see this as a step towards war, then you are completely ignorant of political history.
      • Wilarseny, on 06/19/2008, -0/+164% of our country favors the type of action outlined in the plan (http://people-press.org/report/277/public-worried- ... While I agree that actually putting on a blockade would be threatening to Iran's sovreignity, all I'm saying here is that the administration has been quietly and not so quietly pushing this type of idea to the UN for a long time now. And if you think that our Congress has any greater power than the UNSC to control the unified executive, you haven't been listening to what's come out of the Justice Department. I don't know whether we will or will not invade Iran-- but I do know that the power to make that decision rests outside of any democratic channel.
        • WiseWeasel, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Congress has the power of the purse, and the power to facilitate political support for whatever actions the administration wants to take, not to mention the power to eventually declare war, if they feel the need to bother. So yes, they do have some significant power, and they're one of the few remaining places where citizens can apply some measure of pressure to influence policy. It may not be much, but it's all we've got, and we might as well do what we can to avoid another war.
      • Wilarseny, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Also, I dugg you, because I like it when people actually talk about these things rather than act like cattle with mass digging/burying
    • wadge22, on 06/19/2008, -2/+6So because it calls for other things as well as the blockade, it's sensationalist to say it calls for the blockade? A naval blockade is a strong act of aggression, there'd be war shortly after.
      • Wilarseny, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1Because it doesn't simply say, "Let's blockade Iran," it says the President should initiative diplomatic action with the intent of putting harsh economic pressure on Iran using something *possibly similar to* a blockade. Inter Alia is a very key term here.
        • publiclurker, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2and we all know what that means to this administration don't we.
        • obliviousfool, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Hey guy. Don't forget we had a resolution to authorize use of force with Iraq. Look where that got us. We're still there, building dozens of permanent bases, over five years later. You can't give these warmongers any toe holds.
        • PeppermintPig, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Virtually all conflicts arise out of some sort of economic issue. Even the US civil war can be cited foremost for the conflict of economic disparity between the north and the south, and how slavery was only a secondary issue.

          'harsh economic pressure' sounds like an act of aggression waiting to happen. A blockade is an act of war. Whatever happens, the US would prefer to make it look like they were on the defensive, but THEY are the ones putting military vessels within striking distance.
    • ErrorS, on 06/19/2008, -1/+7You're not using common sense.. we can inspect any ship going into Iran including Iranian ships, what do you think is going to happen with the first Iranian ship we try to 'inspect' ?
      All oil companies doing business of $20m or more aren't allowed? Noone can do any business with Iranian banks? and all of this while we're fighting a war in their back yard, moving ships through the straight of hormus, 5miles outside of Iranian waters..
      People are digging you down because it's obvious, they're pushing Iran into firing on us first. If anyone tried half the ***** in this bill on us that we're trying with Iran, it would be all out war.

      This is an act of war plain and simple..
      • Wilarseny, on 06/19/2008, -2/+0Right, if we tried it, it would. I'm saying the bill is more levelheaded and diplomatic than people are interpreting it to be. It's only obvious if you don't stop, read and think critically about the text.
      • Wilarseny, on 06/19/2008, -1/+0Look, overall I agree with you, I think we're trying to goad Iran into aggression. But to think that this bill is an initiator of that tactic is completely false; this has been standard policy for a while now.
      • Wilarseny, on 06/19/2008, -0/+0What I think about this whole debate is that people are seeing it too naively, thinking that this bill actually has something in its text that if unchanged will affect real-world operations. It simply doesn't, but reading it as an act of war only increases the amount of conflict in an already tense situation. If you're really set on not invading Iran, and I'm totally with everyone on that thought, then what we need to do is choose our battles and not make matters worse by raising hell over something inconsequential.
    • iamjboyd, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0UNSC? Is this a joke? Ditch the blockade AND the UN. Seriously, this is war. Anyone ever here of Japan in 1941? They attacked Pearl Harbor because of a U.S. embargo. Now, Iran doesn't have the resources Japan did, but this is not a good idea.
  • pillcounterd, on 06/19/2008, -8/+64Are we AIPAC's puppet?
  • xsquirrel378x, on 06/19/2008, -8/+51in other news: Anonymous declares war on AIPAC
    • sodade, on 06/19/2008, -3/+20please god - make it so
    • davewelsh79, on 06/19/2008, -7/+2not your personal army
      • Kevinik, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0Personal???!!! on this matter??!!!!!!! You retardation is astonishing!
    • nakani, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6Well, aipac.org _is_ running on IIS *wink wink*
  • Petestreet, on 06/19/2008, -4/+19Oh please please please do not do this. It makes me want to cry. Who are these insane people? It is like our government is trying to destroy our standing in the world, bankrupt us, and make the world angry at us. Why are we doing this? So many people will die if we go to war with Iran.
    • ender7074, on 06/19/2008, -14/+4Grow up. Makes you want to cry? Pussy. Its about goddamn time we started standing up to the tin pot dictators that think they can push us around. ***** em.
      • homah, on 06/19/2008, -2/+10How exactly is Iran pushing us around?
        • Neiby, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2And who is this dictator he mentioned?
      • janne1, on 06/19/2008, -2/+9Do you mean Bush, or what? Because he and his terrorist advisors are the only ones pushing around the American people.
      • drunkmonkey01, on 06/19/2008, -1/+9youd better be in the first batch of soldiers sent to Iran, otherwise i dont see how your are less of a "pussy" than him
      • erasedgod, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6Well, get over there then. I don't feel like fighting this one for you, too.
      • sodade, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6You're the idiot who is afraid of a small country in the ME. I think that makes YOU the pussy
        • Ortheos, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3*Iran is not a small country, it is the size of france, germany and spain combined. It has 72 million people.

          *Iran is not in the middle east

          *Not wanting to die like some mindless drone for your country (that has done so many terrible things in such a short period of time) does not make you a pussy.
  • Aleman360, on 06/19/2008, -4/+9Ahh, good old War Economy. Surely they just want to increase the War Price for the Middle East.
  • itsthemechanic, on 06/19/2008, -2/+25Hmmm, this is the guy that introduced the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=4000 ...
    Go figure.
    • Stryder81, on 06/19/2008, -2/+18Wow, He's jewish? No way.......
    • digitronix, on 06/19/2008, -1/+8A Democrat??? I can't believe it.
    • flashingcurser, on 06/19/2008, -0/+12Warmongering damned republicans!



      Oh wait....
    • Akronos, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Holy crap, he represents my district. WTF? Bastard.
  • Revolutionista, on 06/19/2008, -6/+41STOP IT!!! This imperialism garbage is really starting to piss me off.
  • tarzan99, on 06/19/2008, -6/+34I don't understand America. Why can't they understand that it's perfectly legitimate for other nations to posses weapons, even nuclear ones? If you didn't spend so much time trying to tell other places what to do they might not want to blow you up so badly
    • BaCardiSilver, on 06/19/2008, -2/+11I couldn't say it better myself. and if you took the time to read over the bill, what in the middle east pertains to "national security" anyway other then our soldiers? National security is such a *****, over used term.
      • sodade, on 06/19/2008, -2/+3I love how you get dug down for asking the most obvious question and no one will man up and support their position.
    • drunkmonkey01, on 06/19/2008, -2/+8i agree. i dont see why we can have nukes yet other countries cant. bush may call their leaders out as dictators, but just because you are elected doesnt mean you are any more responsible (as he shows). plus iran couldnt really even use their nukes. imagine if they nuke a US city. their entire country would go up in smokes pretty quick...
    • blackhappy, on 06/19/2008, -10/+4Really, you feel completely comfortable for regimes that oppress women and basic freedoms, execute homosexuals, have horrible practices of human rights, has no stable government and would exterminate any opposition they feel threatens their control of power or disagrees with them, you honestly say you can feel safe with these type of regimes to obtain nuclear weapons. Then your crazier then the Bush administration.
      • tarzan99, on 06/19/2008, -3/+6I never said I was completely comfortable with it, I just don't think it's enough reason to go to war with them. And all the things (some true some not) you said have nothing to do with the likelyhood of Iran using nukes against the states
        • blackhappy, on 06/19/2008, -4/+2Really, which parts aren't true?

          Sure they do, they been calling us satan for over 50 years, nothing a state who sponsor terrorism would love more then to strike a blow to Satan.
        • tarzan99, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3They have a very stable government. And nothing you've mentioned so far is a good reason to go to war. You can't go to war just because you don't like them. Oh they called us names *****
      • sodade, on 06/19/2008, -3/+8Who made Iran so ***** up? Think it might have been a major push in 53? Instead of watching fox news, why don't you read up on the history before you spout your opinions.
        • blackhappy, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2FOX news, ***** you!!! I know all about our involvement and screw ups, but if we want to point fingers then Im going back blaming the british for this whole thing in the first place.

          But what happen in 53' still doesn't detour from what is happening in 08'
        • sodade, on 06/20/2008, -2/+3I would assume Fox news - why else would you be going on about how religious extremists control Iran? We are directly responsible (yes I blame the brits too). The funny thing here is that, for the Iranians, their current leadership is a major step up from the insane dictator that we propped up to keep them from nationalizing their own oil. That makes it pretty silly to bitch about their current leadership. Yes religious whackjobs are social fascists - that's why I want them to keep the ***** out of my government.

          The point isn't just to point fingers, it is to show a pattern of imperialistic foreign policy which continues with this current BS. We are promoting extremism - period.
      • jjason1985, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5So what? that ***** happens in Africa, but i guess Israel hasnt commanded us to kill Africans... yet.

        • blackhappy, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1Last time I looked Africa was no were near being able to build a nuclear weapon.
      • touch0ph, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1So what you're saying is that it is our responsibility to tell the world how to live? That if they don't comply with our way of life then that justifies war? Sounds like terrorist talk.
    • flashingcurser, on 06/19/2008, -3/+4After discovering how bad exploding nuclear weapons can be on civilians, we will never explode another. We are terrified by the thought of a country who would have no qualms of exploding more. That said I don't believe in preemptive wars. Iran is a sovereign nation and can make nuclear weapons if they wish. If western nations are worried about attack, then we need to start seriously thinking about missile defense.

      If the US or our allies are attacked we are more than capable of retaliation. Odd thing is that, If Iran uses nukes it will be against Europeans or Israelis. It would be very unlikely that Iran will get missile technology that will be any threat to the US in the next 10 years.
      • blackhappy, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1I agree with you on most of your points. Iran is the type who won't need a missile, they will find any way they can to deliver a nuclear strike on the targets they wish to see destroyed.
        • sodade, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Listen to the language you are using!
          "deliver a nuclear strike on the targets they wish to see destroyed."
          These people aren't playing RISK - our insane leaders are.
        • blackhappy, on 06/20/2008, -5/+1Sorry sodade, small bag make big boom. Big boom kill many people. Better for you!
    • WiseWeasel, on 06/19/2008, -1/+10Because our politicians are for sale for low, low prices, and SOMEONE with a lot of money wants this to happen...
    • Ortheos, on 06/20/2008, -1/+7Because America has tasted imperialism, and it's addictive. Expect ww3 this century.
    • Woodman73, on 06/20/2008, -5/+1Have you lost your mind? They have openly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the map!! Ahmedinajad (or however you spell his name) said that explicitly, and you want to let him have NUKES?? There is a big difference between having nukes and using them. The US is the only country that has ever used them, and it is something that is very serious. So yes, when a Nation that has openly declared hostilities against one of it's neighbors (and one of our allies) is attempting to get it's hands on the most destructive force the world has ever known, the US will step up and take action to prevent it. Saying Iran should be allowed to have Nuclear weapons is akin to saying Nazi Germany should have been allowed to have them as well. This is being pursued as an international front. No other country in the world wants Iran to get their hands on Nukes, but what are they doing about it?
      • sodade, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3"when a Nation that has openly declared hostilities against one of it's neighbors (and one of our allies) is attempting to get it's hands on the most destructive force the world has ever known, the US will step up and take action to prevent it."

        Honestly at this point, I am much more afraid of the US having nukes than the Iranians. For 60 years we have had an imperialistic foreign policy that creates extremism.
        • Woodman73, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0I disagree. In the last 60 years, who's land have we taken? Where have we sent our settlers? What remote outpost of US citizens is squatting on foreign soil? Protecting the best interests of your country is not imperialism. Life would be great if we could just sit back and let everybody develop their system of government in a bubble. But the last time we sat back and didn't do anything Germany wound up overrunning Europe. History proves that we can't always sit back and wait to see what "they" are going to do. I'll be the first to state (and loudly) that Iraq was an idiotic move. We should not and should never have been there. But Iran is NOT Iraq.
      • AugustusOsari, on 06/20/2008, -1/+0Anyone who doesn't want to wipe Israel off the map doesn't realize that the Israelis are behind all of this *****.

        It's like a bad JRPG. Group of people (Jews) get hurt, technology (nuclear) is created in the same war (WWII) to end it, technology can bring both prosperity (energy) and destruction (bomb), group of people (Israelis) starts up conspiracy (Zionism and attached political *****) for "revenge" (killing everyone who doesn't love them) using and/or accusing others of using it as a force of destruction (nuclear bomb)...

        Seriously, the Israelis and their puppets in congress are classic JRPG villains. Am I the only one who sees this?
  • Thrilltone, on 06/19/2008, -4/+25$10 a gallon fuel, here we come.
    When the truckers can no longer afford to distribute our food,
    all Hell will break loose.
    http://theholygrail.biz/freedom
    • ohnoihavenoname, on 06/19/2008, -2/+1Yup, grocery stores will have to buy from local farmers, and we'll have to buy fruit/veggies that are in season in our own hemisphere. Hell indeed. I need my mass-produced pumpkins in April, damn it!
  • jerrolds, on 06/19/2008, -5/+18HERE WE GO AGAIN!
  • nirvanix, on 06/19/2008, -3/+35Who really are these psychopaths that are controlling the US government? I can't figure them out anymore. This goes beyond greed, beyond party politics, into the realm of Hitlerian madness. Sorry to draw the comparison, but I can't think of a better one right now.
    • personalj, on 06/19/2008, -0/+7Hitler was actually pretty intelligent, after all, look at what he "accomplished". People are sheep.
      • Ortheos, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Yes, its the intelligent bad people that are the most dangerous, since they can manipulate the dumb masses into doing terrible things.

        It takes equally intelligent but good people to fight them, with their own dumb masses as their weapon.
        • AugustusOsari, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0Psychopaths are naturally charismatic and evil. Once you find someone who is good and has the charisma necessary to challenge a psychopathic leader, tell me about it, because I've never heard of any such person.
        • Ortheos, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Who said anything about Charisma being a vital attribute of a great and wise/intelligent leader? Did Gandhi have Charisma? No. Was he clever enough to lead his nation to independence without resorting to evil acts against an imperial poweod conquered his nation by force and kept it by force? Yes. It does not take public speaking skills to challenge someone on the public stage. All it takes sometimes is careful behind the scenes manipulation and planning.
  • bullhead2007, on 06/19/2008, -5/+11***** when I read this article I had the Imperial March song ringing in my head with visions of Star Destroyers and the Death Star.
  • thelastwarrior, on 06/19/2008, -5/+14If these war mongers want to fight ... why don't THEY go fight?
    • BaCardiSilver, on 06/19/2008, -1/+0I think that only politicians who have been in the military, or better yet have been in combat, should be able to propose bills that getting America into wars.
    • WiseWeasel, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Propose a bill, see how far it gets... : P
  • PseudoKarma, on 06/19/2008, -8/+11Just what we need. A new war to distract us from the old war. Honestly though, that whole Iraq thing was getting a bit stale.
  • Bone1205, on 06/19/2008, -5/+13Please do everything you can to stop this. We act like these kind of measures are no big deal and that a blockade is justified by our military. Look at history people. Kennedy thought long and hard about a blockade of Cuba because he knew how serious it was. Evan Bayh is a good senator but my god, he is out of his mind if he thinks this is a good idea. Call your senators and congressmen!
  • an0nymous, on 06/19/2008, -5/+27I can't believe that the Dems are allowing both this and Telecom Amnesty. WTH, people.
    http://digg.com/politics/George_Bush_s_Latest_Powe ...
    • Hetman, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4Really? It is not like they have done anything since they took control of the senate and congress. I mean they helped pass and continuie the patriot act. They could have cut funding to the war in Iraq which in turn would have ended the war. And they didnt.
      • JekJob, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2Unfortunately they only have the majority by something like 3 seats. I'm not justifying their lack of action, but they'd probably do a bit more if they had a larger majority.
      • Hetman, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1I agree with you. But it still makes me angry.
    • skinnyskittles, on 06/19/2008, -0/+6republicrats and democans are two sides of the same coin
    • janne1, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2What DON'T the Dems allow?
  • pintomp3, on 06/19/2008, -8/+14gee, this won't raise oil prices. i'm glad we'll save a whopping $.03 from offshore drilling when the price goes to $6 a gallon.
    • elTito, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Meh. Adversity breeds toughness the saying goes. I say bring on $6 gas. Give the free market a chance to work like it's supposed to and get us the ***** off of foreign petroleum.
  • Sandhog, on 06/19/2008, -5/+14Um...the titles for these bills start out: "Expressing the sense of Congress/Senate..." Haven't they already proven they have no sense?
  • DiggGeek24, on 06/19/2008, -9/+18Bitching on Digg will really solve the problem what will you do to stop it thats right NOTHING.
    • jackhowitzer, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6Already sent letters to both my Senators and my Congressman. I don't know what else I can do.
      • BaCardiSilver, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1I am pretty sure that this is why washington has the power over the american people that it has, because we as a single person don't know what to do, were not politicians and we really dont know whether these letters we write even get seen by our representitives or if they are whether they make a difference. We need a more direct democracy.
      • drgmdp, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6shoot them
        • BESTenemy, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5Here in America we only attempt to assassinate politicians if they oppose the central bank and fiat currency, look up: Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and Andrew Jackson. We reward corrupt politicians with 2nd terms, look up: George W Bush.
      • WiseWeasel, on 06/19/2008, -1/+4Send a CHECK to their opponents in their next election (after you've verified that they aren't also in favor of this nonsense), and explain WHY you're supporting them.
      • nakani, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1@jackhowitzer
        You've done more than most, but here are some ideas on how you can pick up for the slack for people who haven't:

        Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights again, talk to others about the issues, send letters to senators/representatives from other states, join campaignforliberty.com, start a hadnwritten letter writing campaign

    • drunkmonkey01, on 06/19/2008, -2/+6and your comment is just so damn useful isnt it? dumbass hypocrite.
    • Ortheos, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2Hundreds of thousands in multiple cities protested peacefully before the Iraq war but it did nothing to stop it. You don't fight fire with words, you ***** put it out before it spreads.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2For people to take action they need to be aware. Bringing up peoples' awareness is not nothing. Now if nothing ever gets done, then I will completely agree with you. Time will tell.
  • xatx2, on 06/19/2008, -18/+4Awesome! Let's do a full blockade and then nuke the ***** out of those terrorist assholes
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 128 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.