[ritehook]

Yes, I'm still on summer vacation from this site. Don't miss it at all, esp the endless catfighting (dogfighting?).

And I know that a few want me on perm vacation from here - but I'm probably gonna be back for foots. (And I sure don't understand their unkindness, esp after I wished them all a Happy 60th Anniversary!)

But I did vow to the stars above to return around July 4 to post something from a Pulitzer winner that he put on the Wet last Independence Day, for the entertainment of the 5% posters here who enjoy that kind of thing.

And tomorrow I'll try to do so. Or maybe on the 3rd or 4th.

But as an appetizer, I'll post this (below, in Reply) from the Global Research site in Canada.

The Congress is about to pass a resolution (overwhelmingly no doubt) that would ask GW to blockade Iran, an act of war.

It is only a "sense of the Congress" resolution, but asking a war-crazed (and draft-dodging) president to start a war is very unwise . . .

[ritehook]

House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby pressures the US Congress


by Andrew W Cheetham


Global Research, June 18, 2008




A US House of Representatives Resolution effectively requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.

H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also "demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran."

Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution has attracted 146 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the bill in the past two days.

In the Senate, a sister resolution S.RES 580 has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a week’s time, it has accrued 19 co-sponsors.

AIPAC's Endorsement

Congressional insiders credit America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby for the rapid endorsement of the bills. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference June 2-4, in which it sent thousands of members to Capitol Hill to push for tougher measures against Iran. On its website, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ''Stop Irans Nuclear Proliferation" and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill.

AIPAC has been ramping up the rhetoric against Iran over the last 3 years delivering 9 issue memos to Congress in 2006, 17 in 2007 and in the first five months of 2008 has delivered no less than 11 issue memos to the Congress and Senate predominantly warning of Irans nuclear weapons involvement and support for terrorism.

The Resolutions put forward in the House and the Senate bear a resounding similarity to AIPAC analysis and Issue Memos in both its analysis and proposals even down to its individual components.

Proponents say the resolutions advocate constructive steps toward reducing the threat posed by Iran. "It is my hope that…this Congress will urge this and future administrations to lead the world in economically isolating Iran in real and substantial ways," said Congressman Mike Pence(R-IN), who is the original cosponsor of the House resolution along with Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Chairman of the sub committee on Middle East and South Asia of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Foreign policy analysts worry that such unilateral sanctions make it harder for the US to win the cooperation of the international community on a more effective multilateral effort. In his online blog, Senior Fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Ethan Chorin points out that some US allies seek the economic ties to Iran that these resolutions ban. "The Swiss have recently signed an MOU with Iran on gas imports; the Omanis are close to a firm deal (also) on gas imports from Iran; a limited-services joint Iranian-European bank just opened a branch on Kish Island," he writes.

These resolutions could severely escalate US-Iran tensions, experts say. Recalling the perception of the naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the international norms classifying a naval blockade an act of war, critics argue endorsement of these bills would signal US intentions of war with Iran.

Last week’s sharp rise in the cost of oil following Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz’s threat to attack Iran indicated the impact that global fear of military action against Iran can have on the world petroleum market. It remains unclear if extensive congressional endorsement of these measures could have a similar effect.

In late May, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly urged the United States to impose a blockade on Iran. During a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in Jersusalem, Olmert said economic sanctions have "exhausted themselves" and called a blockade a "good possibility."

[RageWizard]

Load up on gold and oil futures now. If this happens gas will be $6.00 a gallon and gold will fly through the roof.

[ritehook]

America'c "conscience" in Congress, Ron Paul, has already spoken of the danger this resolution implies, and will vote against it.

But such is the enormous power of "the Lobby" that he will be joined by very few others.

No one is taking any bets, but of the 100 senators and -what - over 430 congressmen, I'd guess no more than 30 or 40 end up on the "Nay" side.

[freeVICK]

bush

[ritehook]

Originally Posted by RageWizard

Load up on gold and oil futures now. If this happens gas will be $6.00 a gallon and gold will fly through the roof.

Certainly agree, tho if Strait of Hormuz closes (even if only ofr a few weeks) barrel of crude will likely skyrocket over $300, and make even $6 a gallon look like a bargain. (Bicycles, anyone?)

This is almost certainly going to pass, such is the enslavement of "our" elected reps to on single-minded power group.

But the question is -- will GW act on it? Some may think giving him a "sense of Congress" resolution like this is like giving a loaded gun to an enraged teenager.

But, it's a good chance to see if the proverbial "cooler heads" prevail in the White House. (Are there any cool heads there?)

Also interesting to see which congresspeople and senators cross the Lobby and vote No.

[ritehook]

This is a part of an article by J. Raimundo, editorial director of antiwar.com. That, btw, is not a mushy, peacenik "isn't war horrible" site, but a lot of solid reportage (some from insiders) and hard analysis.


There seems little doubt who and what is motivating this new push for war. Even as "moderate" a commentator as Joe Klein knows that the Lobby is up to its old tricks again, and he is being pilloried for telling the truth. In his Time column, Klein wrote:

"The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked – still smacks – of neocolonialist legerdemain. The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives – people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary – plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel."

As I have pointed out in this space many times, the great majority of American Jews oppose this administration's crazed foreign policy, and there would be no antiwar movement of any consequence without their active support. Yet it cannot be denied – as I wrote before a single shot had been fired – that the Iraq war was launched, as Klein notes, to make the Middle East safer for Israel, just as the current push for "regime change" in Iran is energized by the same motive.


The rest of the piece is up at the moment at antiwar.

[SBR_John]

I think all that will happen is that Israel will take out Irans nuclear enrichment ability. Everyone knows that comimg and the its probably built into the price of oil now.

[Dark Horse]

It's funny.

I've studied 9/11. And came up with a conclusion that was not remotely close to what I had expected to find.

I studied the -illegal- Fed. And the manipulation of economies, as we see today. This too led to an unexpected conclusion. Strangely, it seemed tied to the other conclusion. WTF?! Of particular interest, in this regard, are US presidents JFK, Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson.

Recently I came upon this article that was revealing to say the least. Among many other things it states that in 2001 'US forces attack Afghanistan, one of only 7 nations in the world who don’t have a Rothschild controlled central bank.'

Then we had the attack on Iraq. And:
'There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya.'

You'll easily recognize three countries from the infamous 'axis of evil'.

This is the link. The article is long (about 50 normal pages).
http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Rot...d-timeline.htm

I don't know if everything stated in this article is true. I would doubt it. But it contains far more truth than the story presented to us by the media. There can be no doubt about that.

It is sprinkled with revealing quotes by leading figures of their time. The story begins in the 1700's...

[pavyracer]

Israel's entire airforce will be obliterated by the russian made S-300 missiles Iran possesses if Iran is attacked.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124719

The missiles can intercept targets at an altitude of up to 27 kilometers (90,000 feet) and at ranges of up to 150 kilometers (95 miles) from the launch point. They are effective against cruise missiles and ballistic warheads as well, and are equivalent to the PAC-3 Patriot missiles which Israel is considering purchasing.

The S-300 systems are also a major improvement over the 29 Tor-M1 air defense missile systems delivered to Iran from Russia earlier this year. The $700 million contract for that purchase was signed in December 2005. Former Israel Air Force Commander Eitan Ben-Eliyahu told Channel 10 TV that the missiles will make it significantly harder for Israel to attack Iran from the air, if it chooses to do so.

Israel's airforce can't penetrate Iranian forces on its own. They have to use the Meditteranean international waters and then get permission from Turkey to attack Iran from the North border.

If you don't have any military background on how operations are carried out do not speculate.

[Dark Horse]

Iran can cause major trouble to oil transports in the region. Not that Israel would care. As usual, the terrorist state of Israel wants this, and is forcing the US hand to do the dirty work for them. And at our cost...

This is from back in the days when Israel wanted nuclear weapons. The year is 1963. (excerpt from linked article)

1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th President of the United States 1961 – 1963) signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Rothschilds owned Federal Reserve.

Less than 6 months later on November 22nd , president Kennedy is assassinated by the Rothschilds for the same reason as they assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, he wanted to print American money for the American people, as oppose to for the benefit of a money grabbing war mongering foreign elite.

This Executive Order 11110, is rescinded by President Lyndon Baines Johnson (the 36th President of the United States 1963 to 1969) on Air Force One from Dallas to Washington, the same day as President Kennedy was assassinated.

Another, and probably the primary, reason for Kennedy's assassination is however, the fact that he made it quite clear to Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, that under no circumstances would he agree to Israel becoming a nuclear state. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz on February 5, 1999, in a review of, Avner Cohen's book, "Israel and the Bomb," states the following,

"The murder of American President John F. Kennedy brought to an abrupt end the massive pressure being applied by the U.S. administration on the government of Israel to discontinue the nuclear program...The book implied that, had Kennedy remained alive, it is doubtful whether Israel would today have a nuclear option."

[ritehook]

John (how ya doin' guy?) is incorrect,and pavy is correct (as he often is on pure military matters).

Israel does not have enough stealth aircraft to penetrate Iran's fairly sophisiticated air defenses. Plus, if Israel attacks Iran, Israeel will likely experience a missile onslaugh from Iran that will make the Hezbullah rocketry in that brief war seem almost a plesant interlude.

While I doubt that Israel entire air force will be wiped out if they overfly Iran to damge the centrifuges, it will definitely NOT be a "cakewalk." (Which idiot neocon said that - Perle or Wolfowitz?)

They want the US to take the lead, and soon, as time is running out, with their biggest prize puppet ever having only relatively short time before heading to the ranch and a permanent place as history's great dunce and laughingstock.

If they do attack Iran, it will likely be only superifcially, and to goad a response, one that will bring Uncle Stupid riding to the rescue.

[ritehook]

The question of control of a nation's money supply (dh posts) is always a key one, and Ron Paul discussed it. (Tho it tends to put the masses to sleep, as they need visceral images to activate themselves)

Some think Lincoln was shot because he issued non-interesst bearing "greenbacks," and enraged thereby what some call the "money power."

Jackson also opposed central banks.

There are those who believe the US and England's main animus toward Nazi Germany had nothing to do with Jews, but that Germany broke free of the international trade market and used a barter system. (Tho they retained,I think, a central bank)

Maybe someone will write a short, riveting treatise on the ways central banks create money and ruin countries. Something that reads like an action/adventure story, and with cartoons to boot

What about you, dh?

[pavyracer]

Originally Posted by ritehook

John (how ya doin' guy?) is incorrect,and pavy is correct (as he often is on pure military matters).

Israel does not have enough stealth aircraft to penetrate Iran's fairly sophisiticated air defenses. Plus, if Israel attacks Iran, Israeel will likely experience a missile onslaugh from Iran that will make the Hezbullah rocketry in that brief war seem almost a plesant interlude.

While I doubt that Israel entire air force will be wiped out if they overfly Iran to damge the centrifuges, it will definitely NOT be a "cakewalk." (Which idiot neocon said that - Perle or Wolfowitz?)

They want the US to take the lead, and soon, as time is running out, with their biggest prize puppet ever having only relatively short time before heading to the ranch and a permanent place as history's great dunce and laughingstock.

If they do attack Iran, it will likely be only superifcially, and to goad a response, one that will bring Uncle Stupid riding to the rescue.

Thanks ritehook. This was my point. Israel does not have military capacity to declare war on Iran. If they attack to provoke them Uncle Sam needs to come to the rescue. Try to sell this to American public that we are going to war with Iran to help Israel from their humiliation. It won't sell at these rough economic times.