Iran War Resolution May Be Passed Next Week

[TacticalEvilDan]

Iran War Resolution May Be Passed Next Week

Introduced less than a month ago, Resolution 362, also known as the Iran War Resolution, could be passed by the House as early as next week.

[...]

Resolution 362 has already gained 170 co-sponsors, or nearly 40 percent of the House. It has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has 49 members, 24 of whom, including the ranking Republican, are co-sponsors. The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, “According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to ‘pass like a hot knife through butter’ before the end of June on what is called suspension – meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial.”

Our national legislators deem it non-controversial to recommend to a president known for his recklessness and bad judgment that he consider engaging in an act of war against Iran.

Yeah, I know, consider the source, right? Okay, so I went straight to the proverbial horse's mouth. A portion of House Concurrent Resolution 362:

(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;

Emphasis mine, of course.

The sister resolution currently working its way through the Senate, Resolution 580, includes a statement which reads:

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

House Concurrent Resolution 362 contains no such language.

:doh

Well, here we go. Between this and this, I guess I know what my little boy is going to be when he grows up.

Meat.

 

[Orion]

The U.S. can't afford another war. Period.

All it can do is place embargoes and try to enforce its presence in the region, but another direct invasion won't happen. At any rate, Iran holds the chips right now. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I wholeheartedly agree that we don't have it in us, militarily or financially speaking.

At the same time, we're currently being lead by a President who couldn't be bothered to listen to his military advisors or intelligence people when he decided to invade Iraq.

 

[scourge99]

I wholeheartedly agree that we don't have it in us, militarily or financially speaking.

At the same time, we're currently being lead by a President who couldn't be bothered to listen to his military advisors or intelligence people when he decided to invade Iraq.

Which advisors? When? More hindsight I presume.

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I see nothing about using military force in this bill........

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and

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

GovTrack: H. Con. Res. 362: Text of Legislation

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Calling it a war resolution is an exaggeration

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Which advisors? When? More hindsight I presume.

As I pointed out in another recent thread, to start you can look at the Future of Iraq Project and also Shinseki.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I see nothing about using military force in this bill........

Yeah, that's what I thought at first, and then I stared at it for a while.

While the Senate resolution specifically states that nothing in it should be construed to be an authorization of the use of force, the House resolution contains no such language. That's problem number one.

Problem number two I was hoping someone else would point out. That's okay, you actually quoted it in your post:

(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and

Emphasis mine, of course.

How, exactly, do you suggest that the President would carry out the bolded portion? How would he go about inspecting all ships entering or departing Iran?

With a naval blockade, of course.

Which is an act of war.

Given Bush's incompetance over the last several years when it comes to military engagements, do you honestly think he's smart enough to forego such an act?

I don't.

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and

Talking U.N. initiatives...not America going to war.

 

[mikhail]

Why do people keep pushing this idea America is likely to go to war with Iran anytime soon its just not happening.

 

[DeeJayH]

Why do people keep pushing this idea America is likely to go to war with Iran anytime soon its just not happening.

well i know if Bush made this post, it would be called 'using fear tactics for political gain'

 

[WI Crippler]

Why do people keep pushing this idea America is likely to go to war with Iran anytime soon its just not happening.

I think people are expecting it. What is interesting is that there is much more international support, for tough actions with Iran than there were for Iraq. Ahmedinajad has not exactly endeared himself to the EU, IAEA, or the UN. If it was an international campaign waged against Iran, I wonder if people that are so opposed to the Iraq war, would be opposed to one with Iran. Undoubtedly it would be led, yet again, by the bulk of the military power being supplied by the US. But if it were "sanctioned" by the UN, I wonder if this changes peoples minds.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

If it was an international campaign waged against Iran, I wonder if people that are so opposed to the Iraq war, would be opposed to one with Iran. Undoubtedly it would be led, yet again, by the bulk of the military power being supplied by the US. But if it were "sanctioned" by the UN, I wonder if this changes peoples minds.

I wouldn't.

We won't be dealing with terrorists, IEDs, and a national military which essentially dissolves into thin air.

Iran has modern weapons systems.

Iran has a navy, which includes submarines.

Iran has missiles.

Iran has mines.

Iran can close off mid-east oil to the world by sinking a few ships and dropping an assload of mines, then inflict massive casualties to our forces while we try to re-open the gates.

The price of oil will skyrocket. Economies will collapse.

Then the real fun begins. This time, there would be a draft.


Bush has proven his ineptitude already. I can't begin to imagine how bad it would get if he took us to war against an organized military which fights back.


I realize that folks are a bit skeptical about all this, but the government of Iran has reacted to these resolutions in a way which should have all of you concerned.

They are referring to them as war resolutions. They are making a show of getting ready militarily for an invasion.

This is not good.

 

[scourge99]

I wouldn't.

We won't be dealing with terrorists, IEDs, and a national military which essentially dissolves into thin air.

Iran has modern weapons systems.

Iran has a navy, which includes submarines.

Iran has missiles.

Iran has mines.

Iran can close off mid-east oil to the world by sinking a few ships and dropping an assload of mines, then inflict massive casualties to our forces while we try to re-open the gates.

Iraq had a more modern military over Iran. I remember Iraq kicking Iran's ass during their conflict and Iran only being saved by sending in waves of conscripts that were slaughtered.

The price of oil will skyrocket. Economies will collapse.

Well thank god we get most of ours from Canada and Mexico then don't it.

Then the real fun begins. This time, there would be a draft.

Assuming that we even choose to try go it alone and occupy them.

I realize that folks are a bit skeptical about all this, but the government of Iran has reacted to these resolutions in a way which should have all of you concerned.

They are referring to them as war resolutions. They are making a show of getting ready militarily for an invasion.

This is not good.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is a future much more scary and hopeless than any conflict with Iran that I can imagine. Nonetheless, lets make sure the intel is right this time and try to get a few more apathetic Euros to help out.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Iraq had a more modern military over Iran. I remember Iraq kicking Iran's ass during their conflict and Iran only being saved by sending in waves of conscripts that were slaughtered.

Do you also remember Gulf War I where its military and military equipment were destroyed en masse? And the long period where Iraq was restricted in its ability to import military items?

Well thank god we get most of ours from Canada and Mexico then don't it.

Have you ever heard about how the price for oil is set? It's a 'global' market. That means whoever in the whole world is willing to pay the most for the petro is who will get the petro products w/o any regard as to where it comes from. Canada and Mexico aren't going to keep their prices stable and refuse to sell to Europe and China. That oil will go to the highest bidder just as it does now. The big difference will be that the supply of crude will be drastically smaller.
And of course, when the supply of a necessity decreases drastically while the demand remains the same, the prices for that commodity _______.

 

[RightinNYC]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...denies-iran-attack-report.html#post1057622700

10/19/05: http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/4495-iran-war-looms-closer.html

2/23/07:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/18291-cheney-hints-iran-strike.html

3/27/07:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/basement/19191-u-s-going-invade-iran-4-12-17-07-a.html

3/28/07:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/19228-april-6th-attack-iran-begins.html

5/23/07:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/20694-bush-authorizes-new-covert-action-against-iran.html

9/29/07:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-terror/23839-attack-iran.html

3/31/08:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/29950-u-s-poised-invade-iran.html

Been there, heard that, still bull****.

I'll believe it when I see it on Drudge. :lol:

And now we've got one more to add to the list. Lovely.

 

[scourge99]

Do you also remember Gulf War I where its military and military equipment were destroyed en masse? And the long period where Iraq was restricted in its ability to import military items?

I don't remember the 1st Gulf war being very challenging either, even on such short notice. Not to say Iran is a guaranteed pushover.

Have you ever heard about how the price for oil is set? It's a 'global' market. That means whoever in the whole world is willing to pay the most for the petro is who will get the petro products w/o any regard as to where it comes from. Canada and Mexico aren't going to keep their prices stable and refuse to sell to Europe and China. That oil will go to the highest bidder just as it does now. The big difference will be that the supply of crude will be drastically smaller.
And of course, when the supply of a necessity decreases drastically while the demand remains the same, the prices for that commodity _______.

But the oil will not magically disappear. Higher oil prices is a small price to pay to avoid nuclear proliferation.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

But the oil will not magically disappear. Higher oil prices is a small price to pay to avoid nuclear proliferation.

There are already food riots brought about by the current high price of oil. More food riots world wide are just a small fraction of the impact.

note that proliferation does not mean nuclear war

it also means that every other option needs to be very thoroughly explored before military action. and no we are not at that point yet

 

[scourge99]

There are already food riots brought about by the current high price of oil. More food riots world wide are just a small fraction of the impact.

As opposed to nuclear exchanges between countries and stateless groups with nuclear terror capabilities.

note that proliferation does not mean nuclear war

Likewise, a confrontation with Iran does not guarantee high oil prices or less chance for alternative fuel.

it also means that every other option needs to be very thoroughly explored before military action. and no we are not at that point yet

I don't disagree. But its near impossible to have a country "un-make" its nuclear arsenal and/or dispose of it properly. You can't un-ring the bell.

 

[DeeJayH]

since when are food riots the bad guy?
i thought the planet was over populated?
isnt this a wonderful thing to happen?
many will die in the strategic strikes/war = less population pollutingg this poor planet and less people using its resources

Futures so bright, I gotta wear shades

 

[Simon W. Moon]

As opposed to nuclear exchanges between countries and stateless groups with nuclear terror capabilities.

I thought we were discussing proliferation not nuclear exchange.
Yes, you are right many things are not as bad as nuclear heck.
But, that's kind of an empty discussion as there's no guarantee that either nuclear heck will occur or will not occur anyway. What we can do is look at the actual proximal events. Because any number of things can be extrapolated as potential consequences - the only limit is your imagination.

Likewise, a confrontation with Iran does not guarantee high oil prices or less chance for alternative fuel.

Actually, the blocking of the Straight of Hormuz is a proximal result of attacking Iran - pretty much an assured event.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

And now we've got one more to add to the list. Lovely.

Is your position that:

• Congress isn't about to hand Bush an excuse to start a war with Iran, OR
• Even if handed such an excuse, Bush wouldn't start a war with Iran, OR
• The source which put me onto these Resolutions is crap, therefore the Resolutions are crap OR
• Something else I didn't consider

I scanned a couple of the OPs you linked me to, and you seem to be lumbing a worrysome act of Congress with blog this and blog that.

 

[Objective Voice]

House Concurrent Resolution 362 contains no such language (concerning the use of U.S. military force).

Actually, yes it does. See the last paragraph right before you get to the proposed resolutions by Congress. It reads, "Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force again Iran..."

Regardless, I see both resolutions as strong precursors to a possible invasion on Iran. The arguments used in both resolutions are nearly identical to those used to invade Iraq. Only this time, there is positive proof of Iran's nuclear enrichment/weapons manufacturing program(s), as well as their threat to use same against the U.S. and their foreign interests.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Actually, yes it does. See the last paragraph right before you get to the proposed resolutions by Congress. It reads, "Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force again Iran..."

Son of a gun, you're right. Damn, I thought I'd been careful reading it, but I guess I wasn't careful enough.

Regardless, I see both resolutions as strong precursors to a possible invasion on Iran. The arguments used in both resolutions are nearly identical to those used to invade Iraq. Only this time, there is positive proof of Iran's nuclear enrichment/weapons manufacturing program(s), as well as their threat to use same against the U.S. and their foreign interests.

Me, too. Additionally, as I sit here and think about it, I suppose that the Naval blockade play could be used despite the fact that neither Resolution specifically authorizes the use of force. Bush has us stopping ships going into and out of Iran, Iran defends its shipping, and then we "defend ourselves."

 

[scourge99]

I thought we were discussing proliferation not nuclear exchange.

you listed possible consequences of invasion, I'm listing possible consequences of ignoring Iran. Let's not have a double standard here.

Yes, you are right many things are not as bad as nuclear heck.
But, that's kind of an empty discussion as there's no guarantee that either nuclear heck will occur or will not occur anyway.

There's no gurantee of food riots or massive economic collapse either.

Actually, the blocking of the Straight of Hormuz is a proximal result of attacking Iran - pretty much an assured event.

What do you think the outcome will be when our enemy Iran has nuclear weapons or even nuclear technology?

Why do you think the Saudis are buying weapons from us in unprecedented quantities? Who do you think they are afraid of?

The status quo has been in our favor because we possess nuclear weapons and have the restraint NOT to use them (see korea, vietnam, iraq, cuba, russia, or any other conflict post WW2). Its in Irans best interest to upset this balance of power.

Where do you draw the line and start taking action? When the bombs are dropping? When the threats of "mass destruction" are made? When the threats of nuclear proliferation are made? When stateless militias magically acquire dirty bombs and/or nuclear weapons?

Nuclear technology is far too dangerous to be considered a right. It is a priviledge and if you can't convince the world powers you are capable and responsible with such power and your intentions you shouldn't have it. Its sickening how apathetic Europe is about this. This mentality of "let's wait and see" and petty sanctions is provably not working. Its sad but its going to take someone getting nuked or a massive loss of life for the Europe and other parts of the world to wakeup. Just like it took planes flying into our towers to get us to take stateless miltias seriously. Have we learned nothing?