Iran

[mybackpages 0]

This topic of financial sanctions isn't really so new...

I read about is over a month or two ago in smaller news reports.

My husband is in Iran and I sincerely hope the US does not go to war with Iran. If only that the premise of WMD in Iraq was completely wrong and the US doesn't need another war drummed up by the NeoConservative Hawks in the State Department. Their intelligence was flawed for Iraq and I am sure they have no real clue about Iran as well. Especially since there have been no diplomatic relations with Iran, the US government has no in depth knowledge of how that country really functions.

Given US bumbling of many things military and intelligence-wise, I sincerely do worry a bomb would be dropped on or near my in laws house or husband's place of work.

Another thing is that Persians are very nationalistic and even though they don't like their own government, it's still theirs, and all them would rally together if attacked.

The sanctions were just ordered today.

I'd write myself in before I voted for Hillary.

Hey doodle, did you know that Hillary Clinton's grathfather is frm a small town near where my husband is from? and her sister is married to a Moroccan tour guide?

No I did not know that. lol. That changes everything then. Hillary for Pres in 2008!!! lol

I was just thinking that if her sister ever had to go throughthe same visa proess that the rest of us did, then maybe we might get some sympathy

[Donna A 4]

my husband wants me to vote for hillery too. he loved bill so im sure thats why he likes her. in fact i think most of his friends overseas liked him too.

[allousa 1]

IMO, Hilary has some dormant hawkish tendencies.

There isn't one candidate that I can hang my hat on right now and say that I will vote for. I have lost alot of faith in the way that this government works. Some of the fringe candidates that have some really great ideas will never make it to the final race. IMO, the final candidates that we vote for are going to be those that are most complianant with the "big" corporations that run this country. Sure they will do a dog and pony show for the American people to show that they are there for us, but are they really?

I'm not a Dem or Repub. The next president is really going to have to shake things up and make a change for me to believe in the government of this country again.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

IMO, Hilary has some dormant hawkish tendencies.

There isn't one candidate that I can hang my hat on right now and say that I will vote for. I have lost alot of faith in the way that this government works. Some of the fringe candidates that have some really great ideas will never make it to the final race. IMO, the final candidates that we vote for are going to be those that are most complianant with the "big" corporations that run this country. Sure they will do a dog and pony show for the American people to show that they are there for us, but are they really?

I'm not a Dem or Repub. The next president is really going to have to shake things up and make a change for me to believe in the government of this country again.

Hillary is definitely on-board with the neo-con program (as has already been mentioned, these are the same people who deliberately misled this country into the Iraq fiasco.) I went through some of this neo-con history in a previous post about what led up to the invasion of Iraq, and named some of the players involved as well as their organizations and their affiliations. They're still dug in pretty deep in Washington, and as a group they maintain ties to both political parties -- neo-cons are not exclusively Republican (and not all Republicans are neo-cons.)

The corporate and special-interest lobbies have already chosen the candidates they know are firmly in their camps, and they are already conditioning Americans to choose from that small selection. They own most of the mass media, so that's why you are hearing soooooooooooooooooooooo much about Hillary and Obama and Guiliani, and verrrrrrrrrrrry little about the others.

In advertising, it's called "branding" -- people are usually more likely to pick products that have become familiar to them through relentless marketing, rather than items that don't get the same barrage of ads. There is a reason Coke and Pepsi sell so much more than RC Cola and it sure ain't about taste. Don't let these shills do the same with our election process.

At this early point in the game, even before primaries have been held, such fawning media attention showered on a favored few should clearly tell voters who is "in the pocket" of the Fat Cats. You have a number of others who are outside their control -- you can tell because they are being roundly ignored (or even belittled) by mainstream media, lest you get a wild hair to vote for one of the "renegades."

I suggest that everyone turn OFF their TV, and go to the internet to see what these candidates are really about. There is lots of information about their voting records, their main financial contributors, their public statements, etc. Whatever you do, inform yourself and choose wisely -- the future of our country depends on it.

There are a few candidates who have actually impressed me. One is this man:

Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rising clamor for "democratizing" Iran, even though their current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is an elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never complain. Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had. It's amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It's frightening to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq.

....

Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various arguments for the Iraq war, 3 years ago they were easily persuaded by the politicians and media to fully support the invasion. Now, after 3 years of terrible pain for so many, even the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the fruitlessness of our failing effort. Seventy-two percent of our troops now serving in Iraq say it's time to come home, yet the majority still cling to the propaganda that we're there because of 9/11 attacks, something even the administration has ceased to claim. Propaganda is pushed on our troops to exploit their need to believe in a cause that's worth the risk to life and limb.

I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I'm wrong. I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and cost. Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must support Israel, support patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom. The public too often only smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop the war. I worry that before we can finish the war we're in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, "enough already!"

....

It's in our best interest to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business. The principle of self-determination should be respected. Strict non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence our policies overseas. We can't afford the cost that intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral arguments against intervention don't suffice for some, the practical arguments should.

Intervention just doesn't work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner.

Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today's liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy. There's no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the case for a pro-American, non-militant, non-interventionist foreign policy dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years.

It's time for a change.

Ron Paul

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr040506.htm

[allousa 1]

I suggest that everyone turn OFF their TV, and go to the internet to see what these candidates are really about. There is lots of information about their voting records, their main financial contributors, their public statements, etc. Whatever you do, inform yourself and choose wisely -- the future of our country depends on it.

I could not agree with you MORE about this. Yet, it needs to be a mass movement by the American people to arm themselves with the knowledge.

I don't know what the answers are for our horrible education system and health care in this country, but something has to change. Band-aids have been put on these issues, as well as immigration and global warming for so long that I really thing we are really about at the breaking point.

I don't think the middle class can sustain supporting the rest of the country for much longer.

[doodlebug 3]

I LOVE Ron Paul, but he's starting apparently to get a reputation of being a white supremacist. If someone can prove that wrong then I'll put his website back on my signature. He's the ONLY candidate so far that makes sense to me.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I LOVE Ron Paul, but he's starting apparently to get a reputation of being a white supremacist. If someone can prove that wrong then I'll put his website back on my signature. He's the ONLY candidate so far that makes sense to me.

The allegation is absolutely untrue. Here is some background:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/15/t...-b_n_68575.html

The real deal is: Ron Paul has gone on record as being opposed to multi-billion dollar U.S. military aid to Israel, and has pushed for more even-handed diplomacy in trying to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict rather than just unilaterally supporting Israel's wish list. This was enough to get him smeared by the ADL as an "anti-semite." (Of course Paul is also opposed to military aid to Saudi Arabia or Egypt, but this fact is completely ignored.)

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

IMO, Hilary has some dormant hawkish tendencies.

There isn't one candidate that I can hang my hat on right now and say that I will vote for. I have lost alot of faith in the way that this government works. Some of the fringe candidates that have some really great ideas will never make it to the final race. IMO, the final candidates that we vote for are going to be those that are most complianant with the "big" corporations that run this country. Sure they will do a dog and pony show for the American people to show that they are there for us, but are they really?

I'm not a Dem or Repub. The next president is really going to have to shake things up and make a change for me to believe in the government of this country again.

Hillary is definitely on-board with the neo-con program (as has already been mentioned, these are the same people who deliberately misled this country into the Iraq fiasco.) I went through some of this neo-con history in a previous post about what led up to the invasion of Iraq, and named some of the players involved as well as their organizations and their affiliations. They're still dug in pretty deep in Washington, and as a group they maintain ties to both political parties -- neo-cons are not exclusively Republican (and not all Republicans are neo-cons.)

The corporate and special-interest lobbies have already chosen the candidates they know are firmly in their camps, and they are already conditioning Americans to choose from that small selection. They own most of the mass media, so that's why you are hearing soooooooooooooooooooooo much about Hillary and Obama and Guiliani, and verrrrrrrrrrrry little about the others.

In advertising, it's called "branding" -- people are usually more likely to pick products that have become familiar to them through relentless marketing, rather than items that don't get the same barrage of ads. There is a reason Coke and Pepsi sell so much more than RC Cola and it sure ain't about taste. Don't let these shills do the same with our election process.

At this early point in the game, even before primaries have been held, such fawning media attention showered on a favored few should clearly tell voters who is "in the pocket" of the Fat Cats. You have a number of others who are outside their control -- you can tell because they are being roundly ignored (or even belittled) by mainstream media, lest you get a wild hair to vote for one of the "renegades."

I suggest that everyone turn OFF their TV, and go to the internet to see what these candidates are really about. There is lots of information about their voting records, their main financial contributors, their public statements, etc. Whatever you do, inform yourself and choose wisely -- the future of our country depends on it.

There are a few candidates who have actually impressed me. One is this man:

Even with the horrible results of the past three years, Congress is abuzz with plans to change the Iranian government. There is little resistance to the rising clamor for "democratizing" Iran, even though their current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is an elected leader. Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never complain. Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had. It's amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It's frightening to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq.

....

Although a large percentage of the public now rejects the various arguments for the Iraq war, 3 years ago they were easily persuaded by the politicians and media to fully support the invasion. Now, after 3 years of terrible pain for so many, even the troops are awakening from their slumber and sensing the fruitlessness of our failing effort. Seventy-two percent of our troops now serving in Iraq say it's time to come home, yet the majority still cling to the propaganda that we're there because of 9/11 attacks, something even the administration has ceased to claim. Propaganda is pushed on our troops to exploit their need to believe in a cause that's worth the risk to life and limb.

I smell an expanded war in the Middle East, and pray that I'm wrong. I sense that circumstances will arise that demand support regardless of the danger and cost. Any lack of support, once again, will be painted as being soft on terrorism and al Qaeda. We will be told we must support Israel, support patriotism, support the troops, and defend freedom. The public too often only smells the stench of war after the killing starts. Public objection comes later on, but eventually it helps to stop the war. I worry that before we can finish the war we're in and extricate ourselves, the patriotic fervor for expanding into Iran will drown out the cries of, "enough already!"

....

It's in our best interest to pursue a foreign policy of non-intervention. A strict interpretation of the Constitution mandates it. The moral imperative of not imposing our will on others, no matter how well intentioned, is a powerful argument for minding our own business. The principle of self-determination should be respected. Strict non-intervention removes the incentives for foreign powers and corporate interests to influence our policies overseas. We can't afford the cost that intervention requires, whether through higher taxes or inflation. If the moral arguments against intervention don't suffice for some, the practical arguments should.

Intervention just doesn't work. It backfires and ultimately hurts American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner.

Conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, and many of today's liberals have all at one time or another endorsed a less interventionist foreign policy. There's no reason a coalition of these groups might not once again present the case for a pro-American, non-militant, non-interventionist foreign policy dealing with all nations. A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years.

It's time for a change.

Ron Paul

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr040506.htm

[Nutty 2]

Actually, pressure to stop banking started a long time ago.

US has been urging European banks to break ties with Iranian state banks since earlier this year. Credit Suisse announced a few months ago it would cease banking with Iranian state controlled banks. The US government announced sanctions are just an intensification of these back channel efforts.

See link - story is dated May 22

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/world/mi...ast/22iran.html