Iran War Resolution May Be Passed Next Week

TacticalEvilDan · 07-01-08, 10:23 PM

Quote:

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:

Quote:

(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:

Quote:

(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.

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.

Orius · 07-02-08, 11:20 AM

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 · 07-02-08, 11:23 AM

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 · 07-02-08, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Which advisors? When? More hindsight I presume.

Comrade Ogilvy · 07-02-08, 03:52 PM

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

Quote:

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 · 07-02-08, 04:26 PM

Calling it a war resolution is an exaggeration

Simon W. Moon · 07-02-08, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scourge99

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 · 07-02-08, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comrade Ogilvy

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:

Quote:

(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 · 07-02-08, 05:26 PM

Quote:

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 · 07-02-08, 05:32 PM

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