Senators Support Penalties Against Iran

[sabra]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/01/15/national/w091610S98.DTL

Senators Support Penalties Against Iran

Senators said Sunday that international penalties against Iran are necessary to contain its nuclear ambitions, even if restricted trade with the oil-rich nation drove up energy prices.

"We cannot be intimidated by economic threats from their side," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said President Bush should have dealt with threats from Iran years ago. He said Iran is the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world and a "force for instability and death."

"I'm glad the president is finally speaking out about this, but for four long years they have ignored this problem," Bayh told CNN's "Late Edition.""It has brought us to the position that we're in today. And it has undermined the national security interests of the United States."

[tatertop]

1. Here we go again

[mbperrin]

2. These senators are willing to fight to the death of every one of their

constituents! They're willing to spend every dime of our money, and they're willing to let us endure any hardship! Hmmmmmmmmm.........now what is it THEY'RE going to suffer?

[Flabbergasted]

3. Why does it seem like every time these..

people deal with a threat they create two to ten more.

[Tom Joad]

4. I am not happy dems seem to be leading the charge against Iran.

There are other Nukes in the Middle East, and those have been ignored for years, decades even.
We know this because of the courage of Mordechai Vanunu, whose life is still restricted by the Israeli authorities.

What is needed is comprehensive nuclear disarmament, not threats.

Not turning a blind eye when one nation introduces Nukes to the Middle East and then condemning another one when it --might-- seek to do the same thing. Sure does leave us with a credibility gap, doesn't it.

US nukes (ALL Nukes) are a threat to world peace, why doesn't bayh get that?

[Poppyseedman]

6. You are kidding right? If you are talking about Israel

Nukes in the hands of Democratic Israel is not the moral equivalence to nukes in the hands of the Mullahs of Iran

I also seriously disagree that US nukes are a threat to world peace. No nukes world wide would be a nice idea but, not even remotely realistic

[leesa]

8. Right. Israel and the US start most of the wars we engage in but they are

not a problem, oh no!

[MrPrax]

11. They're democratic?

Last time I looked at Israel, currently a democracy sitting a bedside vigil, appeared to be a Middle East country, ruled by shifting coalitions with religious extremists playing a major role?

Sounds like they are more the NORM, than the exception. Iran appears democratic? You have evidence to the contrary that is based on 'fact'?

(be aware that tossing around this 'democracy' label doesn't score any points anymore...that's cold war stuff ;-)

[pinerow]

13. Democratic Israel denies the vote to Arab Israelis' who have lived there

since JC was a corporal.

[cantstandbush]

16. The US is the ONLY nation to have used nukes so why do you think

nukes in the hands of the US are not a threat to world peace? This logic escapes me.

[Poppyseedman]

17. Pretend for a moment we don't have nukes.

and the rest of the world that does, still do.

You feel safer?

[cantstandbush]

18. The rest of the world that does does not include Iran, Iraq, or NK

So, yes, I'd feel safer.

[Poppyseedman]

19. You can't honestly think Iran or NK would not be nuke capable

by now if the US was nuke free. Remember Israel bombed Iran's nuke program eight years go to stop them.

Like I said pretend for a moment. but I digress.

[Zhade]

74. U.S nukes are not a threat, despite the fact that...

1) we're the only country that's ever used them (without real need)

and

2) this administration has stated repeatedly that it would like to use 'mini' nukes on the battlefield.

Yeah, your assurances that U.S nukes are no threat is as grounded in factual reality as your ludicrous notion that Israel is democratic.

:rofl:

[EuroObserver]

5. What (credible) threat was that, again?

Please specify and document, senators.

[Zhade]

75. None. NONE.

There IS no threat.

[leesa]

7. I support penalties against the US for war crimes.

[USA_1]

9. I support penalties against Bush for war crimes

[USA_1]

10. Daniel Schorr on radio this morning ...

... said Bush is funding covert operations (read: terrorism) in Iran. Does anyone have further information on this?

[Delphinus]

12. Well, I don't!

Doesn't what I think count? Where's my representative government?

I'm tired of us being the bullies of the world. In the first place, until we disarm, everyone else should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. And, in the second place, Iran isn't planning on building weapons - they're trying to run their country. Besides, Iran wouldn't be able to touch us - they've no capabilities of hitting the US.

[Tom Joad]

14. I don't quite agree.

I do certainly second your opposition to the US "being the bully" in this world, it certainly is acting like one, and it is a disasterous policy.

That does not mean we cannot act to stop the threat of nuclear weapons. It will take people power to demand that there is accountabilty for EVERY country that has nukes.

I do think any country that has nukes, from India, to Pakistan, to Israel, France, US, ... and so on, it is a problem for every human on the planet. Seeing that will bring us closer to clear calls for disarming our nations. We can't wait for governments to act, we must act ourselves. Politicians act like the hypocrites they usually are, but we the people can change it if we unite.

[Delphinus]

15. I am 100% behind you in what you said:

"but we the people can change it if we unite".

This is key, though - we must unite, we must stand as one, and then we'll be more powerful than they (the politicians) could ever dream of being.

[Zhade]

76. Really hard to unite when even some liberals buy into an 'Iranian threat'.

Which is, of course, untrue. THERE IS NO THREAT.

A potential problem? sure - nukes anywhere are a problem, IMHO. But a threat? Sorry, not buying that bullshit.

[lovuian]

20. Congress beats the War drums... but are the people wanting

war??? I don't think sooo

its their children we are talking about!!!

[UpInArms]

21. NYTs: Senators Voice Support for Sanctions Against Iran (grrr)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/politics/16sanctioncnd.html

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 - Senators from both parties expressed strong support today for economic sanctions against Iran unless it halts its nuclear activities, and a few would not rule out military options.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said on CBS that the United States should press for sanctions even if that led to higher oil prices.

Another Republican, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, pointed to tougher measures, saying that "all options," a phrase generally implying use of military force, should be kept open.

But Mr. Graham, speaking on the Fox News Channel, said that "we need to work together with our European allies," none of which have condoned military force against Iranian targets, to stop Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said that he agreed with Mr. Graham. But noting that only Russia or China were likely to block a sanctions vote at the United Nations Security Council, Mr. Schumer said that if necessary, "we ought to play hardball with them."

...more...

These sacks of shit should be the first in line to physically go into any war that they create.

:nuke:

[izzie]

22. I hope Bush is not behind this dream.

The WH group seem to love all the war stuff. Not that they do it well but that does not seem to stop them in doing it.

[merwin]

23. Economic sanctions are not a bad thing.

It's when they start talking about military action that we should get worried.

[still_one]

26. You and I are on the same page on this one

In fact Iran would love us to take military action, which would then throw the Shiites in Iraq against us, and unite the whole region even more against the west

[K-W]

27. So its ok to starve people but not to bomb them? EOM

[merwin]

71. What is the other option when it comes to dealing with a nation that won't

reason with us?

Obviously, them having a nuclear program will further the problems in an already tense situation in the Middle East. However, there aren't really any non-military options aside from economic sanctions...

[K-W]

91. How about we stop threatning them?

If the US wasnt making every indication that it intended to assualt Iran perhaps Iran would not feel the same need to aquire a weapon and economic incentives would be more persuasive.

Also, since the United States is also in violation of the treaties on nuclear weapons, who in the world are we to tell Iran that it cannot arm itself. The whole point of the treaties is that the world cannot survive with nukes, so everyone gives them up. But the US refuses to do so. The US has retained a stockpile and is developing new generations of weapons.

The option for the US in the middle east is to stop causing hostilities. The US is an antogonizer in the middle east, not a pacifier.

The US has been in a cold war with Iran for decades because the US wants control over Iranian oil, that is the problem here and if the US wanted to solve it, it certainly could.

[0007]

96. How about trying to bring Israel and the Middle East together

All our scare tactics and threats are doing no one any good. Do we have any proof that Iran is starting a nuclear program, other than for energy?

Guess who gave Israel nuclear power? Wouldn't it be best to work with folks like Mordechai Vanunu - The Israel Nuclear Scientist, than to dictate who can and who can't nuclear programs?

[Zhade]

77. I wonder if the half-million dead Iraqi children would agree with you.

You know, the ones who paid the "price worth paying" that Albright condoned.

[Ediacara]

24. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we already have strict Iranian

sanctions? I know there is very limited trade of stuff like hand-made Persian rugs, but sanctioning those would be such a minor hit, it would be an empty gesture. Now if the EU or even the UN were to impose sanctions... then the sanctions would have teeth.

[still_one]

25. Nothing is wrong with sancations, that is NOT the same thing

as going to war, in fact that is the way to deal with it

Iran signed the nuclear proliferation treaty, and now they are violating it, so it is the UNs responsibility to issue sanctions

[bpilgrim]

28. we can't afford to sanction their natural resources as the west depends

on it. and how are they in violation if they are entitled to use nuclear energy under the NPT and no one has shown any evidence of a WMD program?

it's a double standard scam that will only make things worse.

peace

[still_one]

31. then we should become energy independent so we don't

depend on them

since 1973 when opec had the first oil embargo, that should have been the warning that we need to have energy independence

as far as your premise their is no evidence of a WMD program, how would you know?

but even that isn't the point, lets start exploring wind, solar, hydroelectric, clean coal, and yes even nuclear, then we can tell the whole middle east to go to hell

[bpilgrim]

34. i agree %100 but that doesn't describe todays REALITY

"as far as your premise their is no evidence of a WMD program, how would you know?"

thats what the U.N. inspectors tell us & the neoCON 'intel' is BS

BTW: waging war on countries that MIGHT someday in the FUTURE get WMD is NO REASON to attack a nation and must assuredly the point TODAY.

of course we must also work today for alternative clean energy in the future but that will not avert war today.

peace

[Zhade]

78. Man, doesn't it just feel like the march to war all over again?

Are the same people going to fall for the same bullshit WMD lies again?

Will they AGAIN fail to notice that EVEN IRAN HAVING WMD DOESN"T JUSTIFY AN ATTACK?

Fucking hell!

[0007]

97. Many on this board falling into the same trap, eh?

[oblivious]

88. Iran is not violating the NPT. Why do you say that?

Iran is 100 per cent NPT compliant.

[K-W]

92. The US is violating its nuclear obligations.

Not to mention waging aggressive war and other war crimes. Should the people of the US be starved as well?

[4dsc]

29. What if Iran sanctions the West??

Now what do you suppose would happen if Iraq imposed sanction via a reduction of its oil exports to Western countries?? I wonder how that would play out??

[still_one]

32. Iraq hasn't exported oil out for years

it is about time we start looking for other sources of energy, specifically alternative energy sources

[High Plains]

36. 2.6 million barrels a day, according to DOE

According to the Energy Information Administration's International Energy Outlook 2003, Persian Gulf oil production is expected to reach about about 26 million bbl/d by 2010, and 35 million bbl/d by 2020, compared to about 21.7 million bbl/d in 2000. This would increase Persian Gulf oil production capacity to 33% of the world total by 2020, up from 28% in 2000.

In 2003, Persian Gulf countries had estimated net oil exports of 17.2 million bbl/d of oil (see pie chart). Saudi Arabia exported the most oil of any Persian Gulf country in 2003, with an estimated 8.40 million bbl/d (49% of the total). Also, Iran had estimated net exports of about 2.6 million bbl/d (15%), followed by the United Arab Emirates (2.4 million bbl/d -- 14%), Kuwait (2.0 million bbl/d -- 12%), Iraq (0.9 million bbl/d -- 9%), Qatar (0.9 million bbl/d -- 5%), and Bahrain (0.01 million bbl/d -- 0.1%).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html

[HuffleClaw]

30. idiots

sanctions my foot. they know very well this will end up with another bush war.

[Vinca]

33. Pssssst . . . someone remind them Iran's got the oil! nt

[applegrove]

35. This is what the UN is for.

[sabra]

37. McCain: Oil Prices Can't Stop U.S. From Pressing Iran

http://www.ktvu.com/news/6128443/detail.html

McCain: Oil Prices Can't Stop U.S. From Pressing Iran


WASHINGTON -- The prospect of higher energy prices should not stop the world from imposing sanctions against oil-rich Iran, U.S. senators said Sunday.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said sanctions will be tough but that Iran poses a greater danger to the United States than Iraq at this point and must be contained.

"If the price of oil has to go up, then that's a consequence we would have to suffer," McCain said on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

...

McCain said it would be "abominable" for Russia and China to vote against sanctions. In that case, he said the U.S. should pursue them anyway with other nations that are willing to support them.

[dapper]

38. Bwaa haa haa

the bs is so thick, I can only laugh to prevent myself from crying.

"If the oil companies have to rape us, I mean the American Citizens, (and I get a cut of that money), then so be it. We are America! We fight for your freedom... (in iran) so that blah..blah..blah"
:sarcasm:


Dap

[Rose Siding]

39. Bring it on!, said the rich guy

:eyes:

[juliana24]

53. McCain: The loose cannon on the deck speaks out again.

Why does anyone think this man has any credibility?

[bahrbearian]

40. Sill sticking with plan A , what no plan B?

[Dunvegan]

41. Run-up to an invasion of Iran, anyone?

"Catapult the Propaganda" much, McCain?

[K-W]

94. A hungry people are easier to occupy. EOM

[Jackpine Radical]

42. There are people around here who think McCain is a Good Guy!!??

Oh, yeah, fer crap's sake let's run Lieberman/McCain in 2008 & capture the center!

[Zhade]

80. I can see it now...McLiebercain 2008!

:puke:

[NanceGreggs]

43. Excuse me. Mr. McCain ...

... but exactly who is the 'WE' you're referring to?

"If the price of oil has to go up, then that's a consequence WE would have to suffer," McCain said on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

Is that the "WE" who are already struggling to make ends meet, the "WE" who are down to choosing between gas in the car to get to work and food on the table?

Is that the "WE" who are having our jobs cut-back, or outsourced?

Is that the "WE" who are paying our unfair share of taxes while corporations that make BILLIONS in profits pay NO TAXES at all?

Is that the "WE" who elect representatives like you, who do what's best for yourselves and your campaign coffers to our detriment?

Don't dare to speak in terms of "WE", Mr. Presidential Hopeful who is happy to kiss the ass of Big Oil in hopes of a substantial contribution and a wave of support in the 2008 election from the 'people who matter' (i.e. the ones with the bucks).

There is no "WE" in this equation, Mr. McCain. There is "YOU" and there is "US" -- and you are not one of "US".

EORBNTEOTATPI (i.e. End Of Rant But Not The End Of The Anger That Prompted It!)

[LynneSin]

44. When he's running for president lets remind the world of this

Because for some people playing $50 a week for gas is a major crunch in our budget. Now if we spent some resources on alternative enegry that could help but that'll never happen!

[Zhade]

81. Yeah, and also how he helped fuck people over on the bankruptcy bill.

NT!

[killbotfactory]

45. It would probably help the oil company profits...

So what are we waiting for?

[VegasWolf]

46. McCain can afford $150 to fill his gas tank each week. nt

[juliana24]

55. What about all that jet-fuel he burns that we have to pay for?

Mr. Moneybags jetting all over the country and all.

[HuffleClaw]

47. i really thought he had more sense than that.

this is pretty disgusting, everyone jumping on the 'iran war bandwagon'. it truly is.

[IDemo]

48. Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

From Energy Bulletin, August 2005:

Concerning Iran, recent articles have revealed active Pentagon planning for operations against its suspected nuclear facilities. While the publicly stated reasons for any such overt action will be premised as a consequence of Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are again unspoken macroeconomic drivers underlying the second stage of petrodollar warfare – Iran's upcoming oil bourse. (The word bourse refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.)

In essence, Iran is about to commit a far greater “offense” than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran government has plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades – using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism.

[Dunvegan]

50. Diplomacy would have done wonders in staving off the "PetroEuro"...

...making enemies of nearly the entire EU, NATO membership, oil-rich countries (in the ME and SA) as well as damn near everyone else in the world only causes even stronger backlash against the PetroDollar.

But, hey...that's the neocon "strategy"...anger the world enough to have an excuse for dumping all diplomacy, treaties, and alliances...all the better to invade countries for their resources and to build an empire.

Empires cannot tolerate oversight or consensus.

[Geo55]

51. Exactly !

They are not yet ready to be up front and panic the poeple.....
but our economy is about to get reamed in March , hence the build up in making Iran to appear as a "very serious" nucular threat.

It's all about the OIL , people.....they will eventually have to tell the truth in the near future.

[IndianaGreen]

49. Rich people can afford to pay $5 a gallon

the rest of us will have to walk.

[juliana24]

54. What about the price of heating oil? Its very cold out right now and

McCain doesnt have to worry about freezing to death like some of us.

[IndianaGreen]

73. The city of Chicago turned down Venezuela's offer of cheap heating oil

Let the poor and the old freeze to death than to take assistance from Bush's enemy, Hugo Chavez.

I think our real enemies are all in Washington, DC.

[juliana24]

79. Why fear terror when our own government is happy to freeze us to death?

[Zhade]

82. Damn good point.

For my part, I fear the US government WAY more than al Qaeda.

Terrorists might blow me up - the USG will make me suffer before I die. Seriously, you run afoul of them, you get tortured.

[WePurrsevere]

52. We're juggling money like crazy to heat our home already. Gas prices are

going up again up here as well and unfortunately income is stagnent for many us included.

Many Americans can't afford to pay increasingly more out for heating oil or gas (which means paying more for groceries and other silly things like electricity). Not all of us are made of money as apparently you are Mr. McCain.

[Orsino]

89. Oil Prices *Drive* US to Press Iran n/t

[Javaman]

90. The first sentance is the indicator of stupidity....

WASHINGTON -- The prospect of higher energy prices should not stop the world from imposing sanctions against oil-rich Iran, U.S. senators said Sunday.

so by this logic, if the prices are going to go up, it's okay to have sanctions to drive them up even further...

Nothing keeps Iran from turning off the valves and giving the world the big fuck you to all of us.

total disconnect.

[CHIMO]

56. US senators: Iran strike an option

Republican and Democratic senators have said the United States may ultimately have to undertake a military strike to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but that should be the last resort.

"That is the last option. Everything else has to be exhausted. But to say under no circumstances would we exercise a military option, that would be crazy," Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said on CBS's Face the Nation

Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Illinois, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said there are sensitive elements of Iran's nuclear program, which, if attacked, "would dramatically delay it's development".

Another Senate Intelligence Committee member, Republican Trent Lott of Mississippi, said that despite a massive military commitment in Iraq the US has the capability to strike Iran, but it would be "difficult" and other options must be tried first.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7FA0C348-6DB8-40D5-A026-51DEB85BEBFB.htm

[ixion]

57. yeah, brilliant idea

NOT!

[bluestateguy]

58. Iran: retaliation is an open

Then we will need a draft for Bush War number 3.

[VegasWolf]

59. Let's see, when Cheney's friends get gas to 5.00 / gallon it will cost $75

dollars to fill up a 15 gallon tank.

[savemefromdumbya]

60. Cheney is determined to go to war with Iran

I would worry more about Pakistan which has functioning nukes

[NanceGreggs]

61. Like sheep to the slaughter-house ...

... our so-called elected representatives are ready follow the same trail of lies, deciept and self-interest that led them to support the war in Iraq.

This time, you can't blame the president who cried 'wolf' once too often ... it's time to blame the people who, knowing better, answer the call.

[AndyTiedye]

62. Put The Kool-Aid Down, Senator Bayh. Move Away From the Pitcher

[The_Casual_Observer]

63. There is as much "proof" to this Iran shit as there was to the Iraq shit.

Our "leaders" in Washington are a bunch of rich bastards who don't know how to do anything but count their own money.

[PDJane]

64. Pakistan has nukes.

India has nukes. Israel has nukes. North Korea has nukes. The number of nuclear nations keeps growing, and with the United States on its current path, it's surprising that China hasn't joined the crowd.

Since the Republicans want the war, and they are in power, is there any chance of fixing this in time to avoid disaster?

[Zhade]

84. There might be, if turncoats like Bayh didn't LIE about the threat...

...and support ILLEGAL ATTACKS ON COUNTRIES THAT AREN'T THREATENING US!

(Sorry to shout, I'm fucking PISSED.)

[Flabbergasted]

65. A customer pointed out that the political reason behind McCain's

Resistance to Bush was to groom an Republican Dissenter for 2008. He is fitting that profile though he would follow the agenda. I no longer have respect for McCain.

[tuvor]

66. Meanwhile, in North Korea...

"Nukes, nukes, nukes! I've got yer fucking nukes right here, georgie, ya pussy!!!"
--Kim Jong Il

[WildEyedLiberal]

67. Senator Evan Bayh of INDIANA

God, don't shove him off onto my state, AL Jazeera. My senators are cool.

[HuffleClaw]

68. "the last resort."

hmmmm. that sounds a tad familiar, don't it? this instant replay stuff is getting downright silly and sad.

[IndianaGreen]

69. Alito filbuster is not an option, but bombing Iran is?

This shows how disconnected the Beltway Democrats are from the rest of the country.

[Zhade]

85. THANK you!

Don't oppose the racist liar (Alito), but do support the racist liar (b*s*) who wants to illegally attack another country.

And people wonder why the DLC and its type of 'Dem' is so fucking hated.

[Geo55]

70. There was a time,

when a bad and delayed reaction to a previous LSD trip was called a "flash back" ,
now...you don't even have to take drugs.

This is totally scary crap.....this time the rest of the world is not going to sit on it's collective hands.

[Zhade]

83. FUCK YOU, BAYH, and your neocon coddling.

You are nothing less than an enabler of criminals.

[Zhade]

72. Uh, Bayh? The *U.S.* is the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Thanks for backing up the liar-in-chief's bullshit, ace. Real bang-up job of 'opposing' the criminal.

With 'Dems' like these...

[Zynx]

86. Hmmm...Taking 2.5 million barrels of exports off the world market is

not a good idea right now.

[pinniped]

87. See, * really doesn't want to strike Iran, the senators do!

Nice change of strategy.

[0007]

93. Argh! This will be a big big mistake. Gas prices will go out of sight.

[superconnected]

95. lemme guess

run on lobbiests before "ethics" caps go into place.

There's a lot of money in invading iran. Military contractors are doing the best in that type of economy. bet those senators are making millions for supporting those companies.

as if anyone needed to say it.