{news} Fw: Action alert: Tell the Senate No U.S. attacks on Iran; [also talking points on Iraq/Iran]
edubrule
edubrule at sbcglobal.net
Sat Mar 31 17:50:23 EDT 2007
6-Story Newsletter Template + Images
----- Original Message -----
From: AFSC Connecticut
To: edubrule at sbcglobal.net
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Action alert: Tell the Senate No U.S. attacks on Iran
American Friends Service Committee Connecticut
In This Issue: March 28 2007
. Tell Congress: No U.S. attacks on Iran
. UFPJ talking points on the Iraq supplemental budget and Iran
Tell Congress: No U.S. attacks on Iran
There is more evidence that the U.S. may soon attack Iran.
It is urgent to contact your Senators today From Connecticut:
Sen Dodd at (202) 224-2823 Fax: (202) 224-1083
Sen Lieberman at (202) 224-4041 Fax: (202) 224-9750
From other states call the Capital Hill Switch board toll free at 888-851-1879 and ask to be connected to your Senators
TODAY, urging them to:
1) vote for the Webb Amendment to the Iraq supplemental funding bill, and
2) speak out publicly to warn of the dangers of a preemptive war against Iran and to warn the Bush Administration that lying its way into war, à la the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and the nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, will be received as an impeachable offense.
Please circulate this as widely as you can.
Prevent U.S. Bombing of Iran - Call Your Senator Today
March 28, 2007
Friends,
Some of you may have seen reports coming out of Russia, and today in the U.S. press, to the effect that U.S. forces are now in position to deliver devastating aerial attacks, including tactical nuclear attacks, against Iran and its nuclear infrastructure.
With a second U.S. aircraft carrier now in the Persian Gulf, this is the largest U.S. force assembled there since the invasion of Iraq. Some reports indicate that the date for the U.S. attack - April 4 - has been set, while others state that a decision to attack has yet to be made, but that everything is in place should President Bush give the order for attack.
I was in touch with Senator Kennedy's and Kerry's staff yesterday, urging that they speak out publicly and powerfully to warn of the possible attack and its catastrophic and self-defeating consequences. Senator Kerry's office informs me that they are supporting an amendment being introduced by Senator Webb of Virginia which essentially reintroduces language stripped from the House supplemental funding bill that would require the President to obtain Congressional authorization before he could order an attack against Iran. Senator Kennedy's office seems open to supporting the amendment, but is not yet there.
I have appended a report on the dangers of a possible U.S. attack against Iran. Please circulate this as widely as you can. Please phone your Senator as soon as possible to urge that he or she
1) vote for the Webb Amendment
2) speak out publicly to warn of the dangers of a preemptive war against Iran and to warn the Bush Administration that lying its way into war, a la the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and the nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, will be received as an impeachable offense.
Contact information for your Senator can be found at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Please do what you can to prevent this possible catastrophe.
Joseph Gerson
American Friends Service Committee
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-03/28/content_5905620.htm
Special report: Iran Nuclear Crisis
.Aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis entered the Persian Gulf Tuesday.
.Stennis will take part in a carrier exercise featuring simulated aerial attacks.
.The U.S. military has deployed about a dozen warships in the area.
WASHINGTON, March 27 (Xinhua) -- Aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis entered the Persian Gulf Tuesday to join another U.S. carrier already there in a show of force seldom seen since World War II. Stennis was escorted by the guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam as it entered the Persian Gulf, CNN reported Tuesday. In addition,the U.S. military has deployed about a dozen warships in the area.
Stennis will take part in a carrier exercise featuring simulated aerial attacks with the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, a U.S. Navy news release said.
The exercise will demonstrate "the importance of both strike groups' ability to plan and conduct dual task force operations as part of the U.S. long-standing commitment to maintaining maritime security and stability in this region," the U.S. Navy said.
The exercise was certain to increase tension with Iran, which has frequently condemned the U.S. military presence off its coastline, analysts said in the Western media.
The move came amid heightened tension between the West and Iran following the capture of 15 British servicemen in the north of the Gulf last week. Iran accused the sailors of straying into its waters near the Gulf, but Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted they were operating in Iraqi waters.
The UN Security Council voted Saturday for new sanctions against Iran. While rejecting the sanctions, Iran said Sunday it would partially suspend cooperation with the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog.
UFPJ talking points on the Iraq supplemental budget and Iran
This comes from Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies and was distributed by United for Peace and Justice.
UFPJ Talking Points #49
Opposing the Iraq Supplemental & Iran Threats
By Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies
26 March 2007
The Congressional resolution passed last week gives Bush another $100 billion to continue the U.S. occupation of Iraq. That much is now guaranteed. The time lines and restrictions included in the bill - clearly responding to the strong public support for ending the war- were weakened almost to the disappearing point to allow the razor-thin vote. Very few of those toothless restrictions will likely make it into the final bill that must survive a super-majority in the Senate, a House-Senate conference committee, and a likely Bush veto.
But the effort to hold Congress members to their electoral mandate must be continued and ratcheted up, not abandoned, even as we look towards pressing alternative centers of power (city councils, state legislatures, mayors and governors, newspaper editorial boards, influential clergy, etc.) as instruments to pressure Congress from new directions.
Congress is not the peace movement. So the peace movement must stay unified on our principles and our demands, in the face of congressional waffling and "realistic" pragmatism, unfortunately promoted by one influential part of our movement. Whatever they do, we must stay consistent on demanding an end to the U.S. occupation: de-funding (not re-funding) the war, and bringing home (not redeploying) all (not just some) of the troops (including the mercenaries). The longstanding AFSC slogan has it right: "Not one more death, not one more dollar." That means STOP funding the war. STOP allowing Bush to send more U.S. troops to kill more Iraqis and be killed in the process. Just stop.
These talking points are in two parts: first, an assessment of why the real peace movement must continue to stand on principle and oppose the supplemental gift of $100 billion to Bush to continue the occupations. Second an assessment of some of the rising dangers of a U.S. attack on Iran, and its potential consequences.
THE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING BILL
The Democratic leadership in the House claims the $125 billion supplemental is the way to end the war. Something passed in the Senate may include some of the same claims. Aside from setting a date for bringing home troops, the House version included a number of items many in the peace movement would ordinarily support - veterans' health benefits, Katrina survivors' assistance, children's health insurance.
So if there's a time line, what's the problem with the supplemental? Why shouldn't peace activists support it?
Because it gives President Bush another $100 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it doesn't end the occupation or prevent expansion of the war to Iran.
What It Does
It calls for pulling out some troops from Iraq by August 2008
But -
It exempts whole categories of troops from the withdrawal
** Troops "training the Iraqi military" can stay - currently 6,000, perhaps as
many as 20,00 (no limit in the supplemental)
** Troops engaged in "special operations" can stay - the Marines say they want
20,000 for Anbar Province alone, perhaps as many as 40,000 for the whole country (no limit in the supplemental)
** Troops "protecting diplomatic enclaves" like the huge Green Zone and the US Embassy, the largest in the world, and maybe including the numerous US bases established in Iraq, can stay - 20,000 is a conservative number (no limit in the supplemental)
That means Bush could keep unlimited numbers, perhaps 60,000 - 80,000 troops, permanently in Iraq - and still be in compliance with the bill.
And the bill does not require that the troops withdrawn from Iraq be sent home; they can be immediately deployed to Afghanistan, or to bases in surrounding Arab countries, or to ships in the Persian Gulf - or be used to attack Iran.
What It Does
It imposes restrictions on Pentagon deployments, prohibiting the deployment of troops not fully trained, not adequately equipped, and not adequately rested between deployments.
But -
It includes a waiver for President Bush to simply state his intention to override those restrictions, allowing him to send in as many untrained, badly equipped and exhausted troops as he wishes.
What It Does
Prohibit construction of new permanent bases in Iraq
But -
It does nothing to close the existing permanent bases the U.S. has built across Iraq and includes billions for "military construction" presumably for those existing bases
What It Does
Require Iraq's government to pass a new oil law
But -
The law being debated in the parliament abandons Iraq's long history of maintaining control of its oil resources in favor of allowing international (especially U.S.) oil companies to take control of large sectors of the vital oil industry
What It Does
Cut 10% of the funding for private military contractors
But -
It allows 90% of the 100,000 or so mercenaries who fight alongside the U.S. military to remain in Iraq
What It Doesn't Do
The supplemental does not prohibit an unprovoked attack on Iran.
The supplemental does not end the occupation of Iraq.
The Rising Threats Against Iran
The U.S. is continuing to ratchet up threats against Iran. The current stand-off in the Gulf between Iran and Britain may well not have been a deliberate British provocation, beyond the "normal" provocative nature of the U.S.-British strategy of boarding and "inspecting" ships, etc., but that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. Blair isn't so keen on an attack on Iran, his rhetoric even after the sailors were captured has been remarkably low-key, and a move against Iran could threaten his already-shaky political standing. The Shatt al-Arab waterway is always a difficult navigation point, even aside from political tensions, and this kind of move has happened before and blown over in a few days. However, it's likely the Cheney gang is pushing Britain to escalate, to make this Tonkin Gulf II (the false claim of a North Vietnamese attack used to justify the Viet Nam war in 1964), though it doesn't appear Blair/Brown are biting yet. But, once again, having said all THAT, things are very tense could easily spin out of control. So we need to keep up the pressure.
The UN Security Council resolution passed last week was the result of heavy U.S. pressure, but also an example of the limitations of U.S. diplomacy when imposed by a shoot-first-negotiate-later U.S. regime. The pressure was enough to force opportunistically vacillating Russia and China to toe the line, as well as to push the Council's Non-Aligned members - Indonesia, Qatar and even South Africa - to give in as well. But the final text was far weaker than the harsh sanctions the U.S. wanted, and getting the others on board required significant concessions in Washington's position.
The resolution does not impose broad economic sanctions similar to those imposed on Iraq, with the inevitably devastating consequences. The most dangerous immediate aspect of the new sanctions resolution is that it broadens the range of Iranian institutions and individuals subject to the "targeted sanctions," including not only those alleged to be involved in Iran's nuclear enrichment programs, but as well leaders of the Revolutionary Guard and other military officials whom the U.S. claims are somehow connected to Iran's support for Hezbollah, Hamas and Iraqi militias. The resolution forbids Iran to export weapons, and freezes the assets of several dozen individuals and institutions, of whom about 1/3 are involved with the nuclear program, and 2/3 with the Revolutionary Guards and others. But U.S. efforts to impose travel bans, a full embargo prohibiting all countries from buying Iranian weapons, and a denial of bank loans, grants and credits from all international banks and financial institutions, failed - all those punishments are merely "encouraged," not enforced.
South Africa failed in its effort to discard the imposition of military and financial sanctions. But the non-aligned effort to demand a call for a nuclear weapons-free zone across the Middle East had achieved partial success. The U.S. and the other permanent members of the Council (who not only hold Council vetoes but are also the five "legal" nuclear weapons states under the Non-Proliferation Treaty) agreed to include the nuclear-weapons-free zone (NWFZ) language, but undermined its significance. It is included only as part of the preamble, rather than an enforceable operative paragraph, and even more fatally, it refers only to an earlier call for a NWFZ made by the UN's nuclear watchdog agency (IAEA), rather than calling for such a move itself. That is significant because Israel, the only nuclear weapons power in the Middle East, is not a signatory to the treaty creating the IAEA and therefore not subject to its mandates. A Council resolution calling directly for creation of such a nuclear-free zone (such as the one the U.S. drafted as part of the resolution ending the 1991 Gulf War) is binding on all countries, including Israel. A call from global civil society demanding a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East as the basis for resolving the current tensions could be based on a call to enforce that early Council resolution.
Aside from the political posturing, the greatest actual danger from the new resolution may be that it is already strengthening U.S. efforts to enforce compliance with Washington's unilateral economic sanctions against Iran on other countries around the world. The model may be the U.S. embargo against Cuba - ostensibly imposed only by the U.S. itself, but designed to force other countries to abide by it as well. In the case of Cuba, this means a U.S. law that prohibits any ship docking at a Cuban port from coming to any U.S. port for six months. Faced with that choice, how likely is it that profit-driven shipping companies will bother calling at Cuban ports at all? Similarly, U.S. Treasury Department officials are already pressing banks all around the world to refuse to deal with Iran, on threat of losing U.S. business access.
...
Phyllis Bennis' new book is Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy U.S. Power, just published by Interlink. It is available from IPS or from www.interlinkbooks.com.
http://www.unitedforpeace.org
American Friends Service Committee
Connecticut Area Office
56 Arbor Street, Suite 213
Hartford, CT 06106
Phone: 860.523.1534
Fax: 860.523.1705
Email: connecticut at afsc.org Visit AFSC CT Online
Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Confirm | Forward
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20070331/934ec494/attachment.html>
More information about the Ctgp-news
mailing list