News-Record.com

But to some people, you're a "neocon Zionist" if any of that worries you.

Those same people seem to trust the good intentions of Iran's Islamic revolutionary government more than they trust the intentions of the democratically elected Congress of the United States. * Doug

I guess you would include Dr or Congressman Paul as a trusted traitor and a supporter of the phony Islamic revolutionary issue. After 8 years of neo-con rule in the United States and using 9/11 as a unconsitutional act of war, do you really believe these same folks get it right on foreigh policy by the various special interests groups for war?

I believe Dr Paul puts to rest the below statement in Congress on this phony neo-con "Grand Architect" agenda issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1y47K29J1o

This is an incredibly complex issue, Doug, and any course of action we take carries several risks that would probably cause stability in the region to deteriorate greatly. And while these resolutions seem to have a few components that contradict the most recent intelligence estimates, the gist of the text is correct.

But there are two things that I believe we must keep in mind when discussing the behavior and posture of Iran. First, there appears to be a major rift growing between the hardliners and pretty much the rest of the country. Ahmadinejad's popularity has been waning for some time, and it's taken some fancy footwork on his part to keep Parliament from booting his ass out via a "no confidence" vote.

Now, some of that is the result of the exterior threats that he's exacerbated and some of it is the lack of economic reform that he promised would be his 1st priority. This may cause some to conclude that more threats and economic sanctions would hurry his departure, but I'm not so sure. There is a point where nationalism and fear can cause the majority of the citizenry to make emotional instead of practical decisions, as we Americans know only too well.

If we "take the lead" on the Iran issue(s), especially considering the fact that we're occupying their next-door neighbor, we're pretty much validating a lot of what Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guard have been using to ratchet up the fear and anger.

The second thing is probably not going to win me any friends here, but Iran does have a serious need for a visible threat deterrant. Saudi Arabia has been arming itself like crazy recently, and there is quite a bit of (circumstantial) evidence that they are working towards their own nuclear capability.

And frankly, the U.S. has no business pointing a finger at anyone when it comes to nuclear non-proliferation. Between pushing for a wide range of new tactical nuclear weapons for our own arsenal, we're also pushing hard to promote nuclear power generation world-wide and "outsourcing" the containment/processing of the spent fuel rods that we're responsible for. And don't even get me started on the treaty with India. We might as well just tear up the NPT or use it to paper a bird cage.

As I said, if we really want positive results on this issue, we need to be seen as only part of an international effort to curb Iran's behavior, as opposed to the primary force.

I agree the U.S. should be a part of an international effort to curb Iran's behavior.

I don't agree the U.S. has no business pointing fingers. There's a fundamental difference, in my opinion, between the U.S. having nuclear weapons and North Korea or Iran having them.

Foreign policy pretender Doug Clark contradicts my (Dusty Schoch’s) contention that H. Con. Res. 362 and S. Res. 580 in practicality constitute inchoate authorizations for waging war on Iran by stating:
‘Maybe he missed this part of S. Res. 580: "nothing in this resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of force against Iran." ‘
As the proposed legislation itself, Clark is speaking out of both sides of his polemically-challenged mouth. Sub paragraph (3) of the bill…
(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 …
This clearly proposes a blockade in no uncertain terms and there is no blockade possible without force. In this, the proposed bill—I submit—is integrally inconsistent, but that’s par for the Congressional course these days as it is for putative pundits on the GN&R editorial staff.
Outside corporate-owned U.S. media, the world’s news commentators are viewing this bill in the same way they viewed Congress’s 2002 authorization for the use of military force with Iraq—back then based on the false intelligence allegations of WMD’s and Al Qaeda nexus---right now (in re Iran) based on unsubstantiated subjective intentions of Iran’s leadership with regard to peaceful vs military use of fissionable materials.
This resolution is yet one more indication that the Bush Administration will either launch its own "preventive" war on Iran in the next few months or give the nod to Israel to use US-controlled Iraqi airspace to do so and then quickly follow Israel's lead. That’s what was done in 2004 to clinch an election out of fear and that—may God help us—is the apparent plan of the band of Zionist Jews (AIPAC—Google it if you have any doubts) who engineered this legislative initiative. It’s another integral step in the “A Clean Break” master plan to restructure the Middle East, and if you haven’t (as Clark I’ll wager—anything-- hasn’t) read that piece of Neo-Con-Christian/Zionist armageddon horror, read it in the context of the whole story on this alleged “war on terror” in the book entitled “American Fascism”, freely linked the website whereon I serve as foreign policy editor. Here’s the link: http://democratswrite.com/the_democratic_opinion/page273.htm
And if you would like the “whole story” concerning which the GR&R posted only a small part (limiting me to a 200-word letter), check out the two articles at the following link and then put Clark’s pontifications on the subject into proper perspective. http://democratswrite.com/ and…
…Scroll down to “DOUBLE FEATURE ARTICLE”.
I herewith guarantee you that, despite the bipartisan endorsement of these pending blockade bills in the House and Senate, the neo-cons are presently doing everything in their power to foment war with Iran in order to further persuade a properly panicked America to vote in an old Republican war horse instead of a Democratic dark horse preaching from the peace train. They will do it in spite of the fact that this particular old P.O.W. vet will be statistically dead his second year in office.
These blockade bills are wolves in sheep clothing. They speak of holding back on use of force in the same text they call for militarily-forced blockades. It’s inconsistent, incomprehensible and incandescently provocative, and it is promulgated at a time when—as “scharrison” notes, Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guard have been ratcheting up the fear and anger in Iran in order to preserve Ahmadinejad’s tenuous hold on his power.
I urge you to hit the links I’ ve provided you and master the history they cite…in order to prevent its repetition. The neo-cons are again conspiring to widen the war in the Middle East. Iran’s next.

Thanks for the rant, Dusty. As I said, you put more faith and trust in the revolutionary ayatollahs running Iran than in the democratically elected Congress of the United States.

Doug--
You're most welcomed to the rant. You always earn them. But you're still dead wrong on all counts. I never implied I had any faith in Iran's leadership in re nuclear programs or otherwise. My only point was I have no faith in Congress' policies (including the present proposal for blockading Iran) that have led us to groundless, preemptive and nationally-bankrupting foreign wars that have jacked the price of oil to $4 and seeded a depression and national debt that will take decades to redeem.
You constructed your criticism of my caveat on SR 580 and HR 362 by citing the priviso admonishing the use of force in Iran. I logically counter your criticism with reference to the texturally inconsistent (in statutory pari materia) subsection (3) calling for a naval blockade employing (by necessary implication) lethal
military force and you respond, as anticipated with your customary.........N O T H I N G. When U.S. naval forces maneuver in position to stop and boardships bound to and from Iran, those Islamic nut cases will fire a round likely aimed over the proctor's bow that lands on the conning tower. In reprisal we'll sink the Iranian vessel with a smart missile and the war with Iran is on. We pulled the same "dare us" stunt with provocative
fly-bys over Iraq to fan the war embers there. You really don't have a clue as to how wars, and--in particular U.S. instigated wars--are machinated.
You haven't mastered the histories of Afghanistan and Iraq and are yet presuming to preach and prognosticate on inchoate war in Iran.
In regard to complexities of legislation and foreign policy you clearly should attend the posture of the 3 proverbial monkeys...speak in your columns and blog as you see, hear and understand....N O T H I N G.
Stick to preaching what you've mastered ( Old and New Testament fundamentalism).
As always, I wind up regretting taking issue with you in a polemic forum. In grammar school and on the battle field, the basic ethics are clear- One should never attack an unarmed adversary.
Oh yeah - I now suddenly recall-- I'm not at fault this time because it was you who attacked me.
Next time you provoke a gun fight, Doug, do yourself a favor- leave your pen knife at home.
Dusty ;)
Dusty Schoch
High Point, NC

Doug--
You're most welcomed to the rant. You always earn them. But you're still dead wrong on all counts. I never implied I had any faith in Iran's leadership in re nuclear programs or otherwise. My only point was I have no faith in Congress' policies (including the present proposal for blockading Iran) that have led us to groundless, preemptive and nationally-bankrupting foreign wars that have jacked the price of oil to $4 and seeded a depression and national debt that will take decades to redeem.
You constructed your criticism of my caveat on SR 580 and HR 362 by citing the priviso admonishing the use of force in Iran. I logically counter your criticism with reference to the texturally inconsistent (in statutory pari materia) subsection (3) calling for a naval blockade employing (by necessary implication) lethal
military force and you respond, as anticipated with your customary.........N O T H I N G. When U.S. naval forces maneuver in position to stop and boardships bound to and from Iran, those Islamic nut cases will fire a round likely aimed over the proctor's bow that lands on the conning tower. In reprisal we'll sink the Iranian vessel with a smart missile and the war with Iran is on. We pulled the same "dare us" stunt with provocative
fly-bys over Iraq to fan the war embers there. You really don't have a clue as to how wars, and--in particular U.S. instigated wars--are machinated.
You haven't mastered the histories of Afghanistan and Iraq and are yet presuming to preach and prognosticate on inchoate war in Iran.
In regard to complexities of legislation and foreign policy you clearly should attend the posture of the 3 proverbial monkeys...speak in your columns and blog as you see, hear and understand....N O T H I N G.
Stick to preaching what you've mastered ( Old and New Testament fundamentalism).
As always, I wind up regretting taking issue with you in a polemic forum. In grammar school and on the battle field, the basic ethics are clear- One should never attack an unarmed adversary.
Oh yeah - I now suddenly recall-- I'm not at fault this time because it was you who attacked me.
Next time you provoke a gun fight, Doug, do yourself a favor- leave your pen knife at home.
Dusty ;)
Dusty Schoch
High Point, NC