For sanctions on Iran?

[eric_t12]

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANOTHER URGENT ACTION ITEM

Subject: Stop Congress from fomenting another war

We rarely send you action items on Saturday. We're doing so today because the House appears likely to vote on a bad resolution early next week. If you oppose starting a war with Iran then we must act now to oppose House Concurrent Resolution 362.

This resolution has 169 co-sponsors, including 77 Democrats and 92 Republicans. The resolution calls on President Bush to . . .

Create an international blockade of Iran to prevent it from importing the refined gasoline it needs to run its economy
Subject all cargo entering or leaving Iran to stringent inspections
Tighten economic sanctions against Iran
Violate international treaties by prohibiting Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program from travelling abroad.

If another country took such actions against us, we would consider it an act of war. In addition, passage of this resolution would end negotiations with Iran in Baghdad that the administration has recently signaled it was prepared to resume.

House Concurrent Resolution 362 is a major step toward war. It would reduce the opportunity for a negotiated settlement with Iran, and even worse, President Bush could take this resolution as a sign that he has Congressional support to attack Iran before he leaves office.

Look, we don't like Iran's government any better than anyone else does, but we do like the Iranian people, and they like us (America). An attack on Iran could turn the Iranian people against us, and further cement the Iranian government in power. It would also further radicalize the Muslim world and increase the threat of terrorism.

Our government overreacted to the supposed threat of WMD in Iraq, and now it's doing the same thing with Iran. Our so-called leaders seem never to learn. They just careen from one disaster to the next. So the real leadership must come from us.

Please send a message to Congress today promoting expanded negotiations with Iran. Use your personal comments to ask your representatives to oppose House Concurrent Resolution 362. You can send your message here.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
-------------------------------------------

economic sanctions and 'political coercion' haven't done anything for the 50 years we've had them on cuba, or the 10 years we had them on iraq.





let's not let history repeat itself.

[einheit 13]

ha, China and Russia would step in a heart beat and shut the Persian Gulf down completely...and then what we do?? We would go home and say 'sorry'

[eric_t12]

silence... maybe sanctions ARE the way to go... :s

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by eric_t12

economic sanctions and 'political coercion' haven't done anything for the 50 years we've had them on cuba, or the 10 years we had them on iraq.

let's not let history repeat itself.

What's the alternative then?

If you don't favor isolating a country with sanctions and trying to use diplomacy, then the only other 2 options are to attack or do nothing.

Let us know how you would proceed.

Frank

[FLSTFI Dave]

Sanctions should be tried. Maybe it will help move diplomacy along. So far no nations diplomacy has worked with Iran. Maybe this will.

It beats doing nothing.....Iran would be a very bad country to have nukes, as they clearly aid and support terrorist nations

It beats attacking or bombing them.....

[eric_t12]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

What's the alternative then?

If you don't favor isolating a country with sanctions and trying to use diplomacy, then the only other 2 options are to attack or do nothing.

Let us know how you would proceed.

Frank

uh - TALK TO THEM.




you don't have to sanction countries you talk to.


there are a couple here or there we prove this with.


X12



were you serious when you posted that - or just joking. because that's what it seems like.

here's a little list.

ETA: i think sanctions should NOT proceed. as i already stated, they didn't work in iraq, they didn't work on cuba, apparently (according to this list) they haven't worked on Burma or the Ivory Coast....




....experience seems to dictate that they won't work on iran either. As for diplomatic solutions - why dont we try them? remember all the cr@p pelosi got after attempting something similar?

not that i like her, but obviously the pathways to open diplomacy are somewhat long in this country... maybe we should try one - just for the heck of it.

someone sure didn't want to.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by eric_t12

uh - TALK TO THEM.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention...

U.S. open to more talks with Iran on Iraq | Reuters

U.S. and Iranian officials met three times last year to seek common ground on stabilizing Iraq in discussions arranged by Baghdad, but the talks have since stalled.

Behind Washington's Turnabout on Talks with Iran - TIME

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signaled Wednesday that the U.S. is willing to join three key European Union countries at the negotiating table with Iran, on the condition that Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment activities.

As you can see, we have already talked with Iran 3 times regarding their meddling in Iraq and we have offered to talk with them about their nuclear program with preconditions.

The UN and the EU have already had direct talks with Iran (with NO preconditions), but those talks have yielded no results.

So, you are arguing that sanctions don't work? I think they work better than no sactions. And how did sanctions against Cuba not work? They never ended up becoming much of a threat because they were isolated. And don't forget, we didn't find any WMD in Iraq and our sanctions did prevent Saddam from attacking/invading other countries again, which is what they were INTENDED to do. Sanctions aren't intended to destroy a country, they are intended to isolate so that the country can't cause anyone else harm. In Iran's case, the sanctions are intended to mess up their economy so they can't fund their programs and so their own people will turn against them.

Why should we not place sanctions on countries who are violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Think about it...if Iran really wasn't developing anything bad, then why won't they let everyone into their facilities to see for themselves?

We should talk to them, but not without sanctions and not without preconditions. The first of which would be to stop helping terrorists in Iraq kill American soldiers.

If you want to take up defense for a country like Iran, go right ahead.

Frank

[eric_t12]

Why should we not place sanctions on countries who are violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

when did they violate this treaty!? i have heard no such claims before made, and the NIE estimate says they HAVE NO PROGRAM to violate it with.


not to mention maybe you should look up the Atoms for Peace program, and its history... find out where they got their nuclear material from in the first place...


which leads me to this point...

In Iran's case, the sanctions are intended to mess up their economy so they can't fund their programs and so their own people will turn against them.

yes, because the above clearly states that the government has never done anything which brought unintended consequences... maybe you should look up old Paul Wolfowitz's statement concerning US Troop presence in Saudi Arabia, and what he says Al Qaeda has a major contention with... if you think he's singular minded, maybe check with the head of the Bin Laden unit, he says about the same thing...read about it here...

If you want to take up defense for a country like Iran, go right ahead.

not quite calling me anti-american, or a terrorist lover, but i can detect the hint.


lol, your referrence to us not finding any WMD's (implying they were there, but OBVIOUSLY shipped to syria... i think?) is funny, since that obviously means your "sanctions" didn't work anyway.


Did saddam's people turn against him? Oh yea he was an oppressive dictator who didn't let his people do anything...

Completely different from what we are told Iran is.



again i ask - Were you paying attention to anything you write?


...but i digress. you did make a point we 'have' talked to iran. i concede THAT much...

congrats.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by eric_t12

...but i digress. you did make a point we 'have' talked to iran. i concede THAT much...
congrats.

Thanks, because that's what this thread has been primarily about so far.

Remember?

Originally Posted by eric_t12

uh - TALK TO THEM.

you don't have to sanction countries you talk to.

there are a couple here or there we prove this with.

X12

So, since you have decided that we should procced by talking to them and you have admitted that we have/are talking to them, now how would you proceed? Sorry that you used a "rolleyes x 12" and then it ended up that we are talking to Iran.

Thanks,

Frank

[eric_t12]

no - i roll eyes X12'd the idea that you put out that APPARENTLY - every country we talk to must be sanctioned.

If you don't favor isolating a country with sanctions and trying to use diplomacy

remember writing that?

again.


now frank, as for the 'haha i got you' which you seem to be getting at -

Originally Posted by Eric_t12

when did they violate this treaty!?

Originally Posted by Eric_t12

find out where they got their nuclear material from in the first place...

Originally Posted by Eric_t12

maybe you should look up old Paul Wolfowitz's statement concerning US Troop presence in Saudi Arabia, and what he says Al Qaeda has a major contention with... if you think he's singular minded, maybe check with the head of the Bin Laden unit, he says about the same thing...read about it here...

care to give us your thoughts?

Sorry that you used a "rolleyes x 12" and then it ended up that we are talking to Iran.

sorry you didn't read it very well.