For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
Joined: Apr 09, 2007 Posts: 5312 Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
EnergyUnlimited wrote:
Plantagenet wrote:
NOTHING happens in the house of representatives that isn't controlled and approved by the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi, dem-SF).
So why don't you dissolve house of reps and just keep Nancy Pelosi or any another speaker, possibly elected one instead?
The Speaker of the House is elected by the majority party in the House of Representatives. The Speaker has the power to set agendas in the House (i.e. to decide what bills come up for a vote and to block other bills from ever coming to a vote). Thus, NOTHING happens in the house of representatives that isn't controlled and approved by the Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi, dem-SF).
Nancy Pelosi stopped consideration of impeachment bills for Bush and Cheney, so nothing happened, and Nancy Pelosi supports more funding for the Iraq War, so the war goes on, and Nancy Pelosi supports the Iran embargo resolution, so it got passed by the House..
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
H.CON.RES.362
Title: Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes.
Related Bills: S.RES.580
The cosponsor count continues to rise. For more information and current status, go HERE
As of 7/11/08 the cosponsor count was 238.
As of today, 7/19/08 the cosponsor count is 247.
Could someone please explain what the 'magic' cosponsor number is? _________________ Live simply, love generously, care deeply, and speak kindly.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass;
It's about learning how to dance in the rain.
Joined: Aug 23, 2004 Posts: 369 Location: New Zealand
Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
Well 3 gets a Bill considered I think. 261 or so would be enough co sponsors to over-ride a veto. The still need 60 senators to avoid a filibuster. They don't need to all be co-sponsors, they just need to vote yes.
Bu what are the odds of Bush Vetoing it? "Its not my fault, Congress wants me to go to war. I am being Bi-Partisan"
Joined: May 06, 2006 Posts: 830 Location: Tustin, CA
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:54 pm Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
Plantagenet wrote:
Nancy Pelosi stopped consideration of impeachment bills for Bush and Cheney, so nothing happened, and Nancy Pelosi supports more funding for the Iraq War, so the war goes on, and Nancy Pelosi supports the Iran embargo resolution, so it got passed by the House..
I guess time to eliminate Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house, Dumb Bitch! _________________ Skeptical scrutiny in both Science and Religion is the means by which deep thoughts are winnowed from deep nonsense-Carl Sagan
Joined: May 06, 2006 Posts: 830 Location: Tustin, CA
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:43 am Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
vetusfirma wrote:
Alright children, remember this is all about PEAK OIL. Of course we are in Iraq, it's the only way to surround Iran and control the oil. Of course we are going to stop Iran from controlling the region thur nuclear fear.
Just hating Jews and America is not going to keep the lights on here. If you hate Jews so much, go to Gaza. If you love Chavez so much, go to Venezuela.
Me, I'm gonna take care of mine, and I don't care what the rest of the world does. Remember, all the oil will be used. It's just a matter of 'who' will do the using.
Just got around to reading your entre. Who up to this post has said anything about "hating Jews"? Pointing out that Zionism is a Cult that has been responsible for killing my fellow Americans is not anti Jewish, or anti Semitic (Arabs are a Semitic People too)! _________________ Skeptical scrutiny in both Science and Religion is the means by which deep thoughts are winnowed from deep nonsense-Carl Sagan
Last edited by SILENTTODD on Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: May 06, 2006 Posts: 830 Location: Tustin, CA
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:47 am Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
idiom wrote:
A war with Iran will leave America in control of a huge swathe of the Middle East running from Afghanistan to Iraq.
With that size Islamic population under American occupation, with that amount of Oil under Ameircan control, the balance of global power destabilse quickly.
idiom, believe me I'm on your side! America does not possess an army big enough to occupy the middle east.
It hasn't since about 1945! _________________ Skeptical scrutiny in both Science and Religion is the means by which deep thoughts are winnowed from deep nonsense-Carl Sagan
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
An important point to consider when thinking about the so called Iran blockade. The oil that leaves Iran by tanker doesn't belong to Iran: it belongs to the purchasers who are Europeans for the most part. Typically the title to the oil is transfered to the importers before it's even pumped from storage. And the tankers are not owned by Iran. Blockading Itanian exports would be no different than stopping a Greek owned tanker as it was trying to dock in Germany.
Anyone think this would sit well with our "allies"?
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:15 am Post subject: Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
ROCKMAN wrote:
An important point to consider when thinking about the so called Iran blockade. The oil that leaves Iran by tanker doesn't belong to Iran: it belongs to the purchasers who are Europeans for the most part. Typically the title to the oil is transfered to the importers before it's even pumped from storage. And the tankers are not owned by Iran. Blockading Itanian exports would be no different than stopping a Greek owned tanker as it was trying to dock in Germany.
Anyone think this would sit well with our "allies"?
If the embargo is endorsed by the security council, then the act of purchasing the oil would be illegal and entitled to sezure, if it were endorsed by NATO, it would be a technicaly illegal blockade but the EU would tow the same line as if it were an UN blockade. If the US allies in Europe were not onboard and considered the blockade illegal then seizing the cargo could be intereptated as an act of war against the nation the ship is flagged by, not that the USN has much to fear from the Liberian navy. It is a very very emotive issue in international affairs for the US as freedom of the seas was the main driving force in the 1812 war (as well as the kidnapping and press ganging of US sailors), WWI (the sinking of ships in international waters by the Kaiserliche Marine) and again in WWII when the Kriegsmarine were impeding trade and sunk the USS Rubin James. For the US to conduct a blockade without explicit approval of its European and certain other allies would place it as effectively being a pirate state (a la the Barbary wars), I doubt anyone I dumb enough to let this happen, it may take monumental arm twisting but bribes would have to be paid and arms twisted to get others onboard.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
