we know who is promoting a war against Iran
warmongers and jews
let'em fight w/o US tax dollars

On Aug 3, 12:50 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Language contained in the resolution condemns Iran “for its threats of 
> annihilating the United States and the State of Israel” (threats Iran has 
> never issued) and supports the use of “all means of persuading the Government 
> of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons" (nuclear weapons Iran 
> does not have and does not possess the capability to produce). Gohmert's bill 
> supports Israel’s "right" to use “all means necessary to confront and 
> eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran.” "The Mandatory Service Bill and the 
> Impending Attack On IranKurt Nimmo
> Infowars.com
> August 1, 2010
> Rep. Charles Rangel may be in trouble because he is your standard corrupt 
> district of criminals opportunist, but that has not killed his mandatory 
> slavery bill. On July 15,Rangel introduced H.R. 5741, the Universal National 
> Service Act, and it was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 
> Military Personnel on July 23. Even though the bill does not have 
> co-sponsors, it is currently under debate.
>  
> “I have introduced legislation to reinstate the draft and to make it 
> permanent during time of war,” said Rep. Charles Rangel.
> “I have introduced legislation to reinstate the draft and to make it 
> permanent during time of war. It is H.R. 5741, and what this does is to make 
> everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 – whether they’re men or women, 
> whether they’re straight or gay – to have the opportunity to defend this 
> great country whenever the president truly believes that our national 
> security is threatened,” Rangel said from the floor of the House.
> Rangel specifically said the legislation is designed to be used “during time 
> of war.” On the day before Rangel’s slavery bill went to the House Armed 
> Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Texas Rep.Louis Buller Gohmert 
> introduced House Resolution 1553. It has since been referred to the Committee 
> on Foreign Affairs.
> “Expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli 
> sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to 
> use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by 
> the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other 
> peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such 
> an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel,”Gohmert’s 
> resolution states.
> Language contained in the resolution condemns Iran “for its threats of 
> annihilating the United States and the State of Israel” (threats Iran has 
> never issued) and supports the use of “all means of persuading the Government 
> of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons” (nuclear weapons Iran 
> does not have and does not possess the capability to produce). Gohmert’s bill 
> supports Israel’s “right” to use “all means necessary to confront and 
> eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran.”
> In 2007, MohamedEl Baradei, at the time the head of the International Atomic 
> Energy Agency, said Iran did not have nuclear material and also stated that 
> the country did not have a weaponization program.
> Also in 2007, theNational Intelligence Council, where U.S. mid-term and 
> long-term strategic policy is formulated for the intelligence community, 
> stated “with moderate-to-high confidence… Iran does not currently have a 
> nuclear weapon.”
> “There is no evidence that Iran has made a decision to produce nuclear 
> weapons,” said Russia’s Foreign MinisterSergei Lavrovwhile speaking out 
> against sanctions on Iran.
> In July 21, the day before Gohmert introduced House Resolution 1553, Iranian 
> Parliament SpeakerAli Larijanisaid the U.S. and Russia know that Iran does 
> not have any nuclear weapons.
> Despite the fact there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program 
> and no indication Iran plans to attack Israel, let alone the absurd notion it 
> will attack the United States, Israel and the United States are preparing to 
> attack Iran. The claim Iran plans to attack the United States is ironically 
> reminiscent of the neocon accusation that Saddam Hussein planned to attack 
> the U.S., one of several obvious falsehoods used as an excuse to invade.
> “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Israel 
> have been shuttling between Washington and Tel Aviv, pushing for crippling 
> economic sanctions that even they concede will not change Iran’s nuclear 
> policy. These sanctions are being put in place, both by the United States and 
> its allies. The open prediction that they will fail is meant to indicate just 
> one thing military attacks are inevitable,” writesMuhammad Sahimifor PBS. 
> “The rhetorical rationale for attacking Iran keeps coming out of Washington. 
> Most astonishingly, there is a resolution before the U.S. Congress, signed by 
> one-third of the Republican caucus, that urges support for Israeli military 
> attacks on Iran…. The resolution, H. Res. 1553, represents a green light for 
> a bombing campaign. It provides explicit support for military strikes.”
> The bomb Iran consensus was underscored late last month when former CIA 
> directorMichael Haydentold CNN’s State of the Union that a military attack 
> against Iran “seems inexorable.” Hayden added that in his “personal thinking, 
> I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible 
> outcomes.” In other words, for Hayden, mass murder is preferable to diplomacy.
> “The next step is tough sanctions, economic sanctions. Frankly it’s a last 
> chance for Iran to avoid giving the rest of the world, including the United 
> States, a hard choice between allowing Iran to go nuclear and using military 
> power to stop them from doing that,” saidSen. Joe Liebermanin April.
> “We have to contemplate the final option,” saidSen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., “the 
> use of force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”
> “The administration needs to expand its approach and make clear to the 
> Iranian regime and the American people: If diplomatic and economic pressures 
> do not compel Iran to terminate its nuclear program, the U.S. military has 
> the capability and is prepared to launch an effective, targeted strike on 
> Tehran’s nuclear and supporting military facilities,” former senator Charles 
> S. Robb and retired general Charles Wald wrote for theWashington Poston July 
> 9.
> Slaughtering innocents is a “terrible thing,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, 
> R-S.C., but “sometimes it is better to go to war than to allow the Holocaust 
> to develop a second time.”
> Graham made this ludicrous statement regardless of the fact Iran has never 
> threatened to attack Israel. It is based on amistranslationof a speech 
> delivered by Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad published in the New York 
> Times.
> The Times played a big role in the Iraq invasion when Judith Miller published 
> neocon lies about aluminum tubes and other such patently fallacious nonsense. 
> Neocon lies ultimately resulted in the murder of more than a million Iraqis, 
> a total approaching Nazi war crimes.
> As should be expected, the neocons figure big in the Iran attack plot now 
> unfolding. “If military force is ever employed, it should be done in a 
> decisive fashion. The Iran government’s ability to wage conventional war 
> against its neighbors and our troops in the region should not exist. They 
> should not have one plane that can fly or one ship that can float.”Danielle 
> Pletkaof the American Enterprise Institute wrote earlier this year.
> In other words, according to neocons over at the criminal organization 
> largely responsible for mass murder in Iraq, Iran should be reduced to a 
> parking lot in order to prevent it from responding to an attack.
> NeoconReuel Marc Gerechtexplains how the United States will be sucked into an 
> Israeli-launched attack against Iran. “What is important to understand about 
> this campaign is that the aim of Gerecht and of the right-wing government of 
> Benjamin Netanyahu is to support an attack by Israel so that the United 
> States can be drawn into direct, full-scale war with Iran,” writes 
> historianGareth Porter.That has long been the Israeli strategy for Iran, 
> because Israel cannot fight a war with Iran without full U.S. involvement. 
> Israel needs to know that the United States will finish the war that Israel 
> wants to start.Gerecht openly expresses the hope that any Iranian response to 
> the Israeli attack would trigger full-scale U.S. war against Iran. “If 
> Khamenei has a death-wish, he’ll let the Revolutionary Guards mine the 
> strait, the entrance to the Persian Gulf,” writes Gerecht. “It might be the 
> only thing that would push President Obama to strike Iran militarily….”Self 
> defense is not an option. If Iran responds to an attack and its leadershiphas 
> stated repeatedly it willthe U.S. will become directly involved.
> “Gerecht’s argument for war relies on a fanciful nightmare scenario of Iran 
> doling out nuclear weapons to Islamic extremists all over the Middle East. 
> But the real concern of the Israelis and their lobbyists, as Gerecht’s past 
> writing has explicitly stated, is to destroy Iran’s Islamic regime in a 
> paroxysm of U.S. military violence,” writes Porter.
> This “paroxysm of U.S. military violence” will undoubtedly call for adding a 
> fresh crop of bullet-stoppers and that is where H.R. 5721 comes into play. As 
> Rangel noted, his bill will provide under government imposed mandate that 
> “everyone between the ages of 18 and 42 – whether they’re men or women, 
> whether they’re straight or gay – to have the opportunity to defend this 
> great country” from imaginary and trumped-up enemies.
> Rangel’s bill may never make it out of committee. The attack on Iran, 
> however, is all but a foregone 
> conclusion.http://www.infowars.com/the-mandatory-serviece-bill-and-the-impending-attack-on-iran/

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reply via email to