http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran#UN_sanctions_against_Iran

This is a global effort.

is the text:

H.R. 850: Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr850/text

your OP implied that America was going alone - did I misunderstand what you are saying?

Those suckers move fast. Plus, they're getting smaller and harder to grasp...

that's the way it usually works - treaties and resolutions have to be turned into law.

It is not just America - my only point.

These are non-UN sanctions.

so what's your point?

These are specific to the U.S.

that is the title of you OP. I disagree with your OP - there are many countries assuming responsibility for stopping Iran's nuclear program. America has decided that as part of that effort to designate the IRG a terrorist group.

What do you think that means? What does designating a group a terrorist organization mean? What does "stopping Iran" mean in terms of the U.S. role in the world? What if Iran continues to pursue its nuclear program, then what?

in accordance with UN resolutions. If Iran doesn't stop? Then they will destroy their economy and spark a nuclear arms race in the ME.

As to what does designating a group a terrorist organization mean - the criteria is found in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).

I should point out that Congress is not designating the IRG as an terrorist organization - the law merely directs the Secretary of State to determine if the IRG meets the criteria in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).

and make the sanctions go away. Just a thought.

If not they should proceed.

We only bomb those who do not have a Nuclear weapons.

No way in hell they can ever catch up with Israel, or the other nuclear powers that surround them (Russia, China, Pakistsan, India). That means it will never be possible for them to use nukes aggressively. What nuclear weapons will do is make them harder to attack, and that is nothing but good.

And a Nuclear Bomb in the hands of a theocracy is scary.

Not that proliferation is a good thing, but further pressing the cause of US military dominance of the ME is even worse.

I am not for war but we can not allow them to have a bomb.

I suspect that their having a bomb prevents a US first strike on them, because they could easily take it out on South Korea. I'd be glad to see Iran protect itself from a first strike.

Seriously, why shouldn't they?

The bomb in the hands of religious zealots is not a good thing.

Mutually assured destruction.

More nukes is not the answer.

Theocracy having a bomb is not the answer.

It will make the ME safer to balance the power.

The ME will not be safe. The Saudis will then seek the BOMB and that is not good. Iran is not trustworthy because they are a theocracy and are more likely to use it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10178169

America, Iran & Continuing Patterns of Hypocrisy

By Ted Snider

Saturday, March 16, 2013

The hypocrisy of Brennan making this assertion is much more glaring and foreboding than that of the many others in government and media that make that assertion. Brennan is the head of the C.I.A. But the verdict of the intelligence community is precisely the opposite of the assertion that Brennan made in his senate testimony. A National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.) represents the collective conclusions of the top analysts of all of America's many intelligence agencies. The government knows what the N.I.E. tells it. If the N.I.E. doesn't say it, then government officials, including Brennan, don't know it. The 2007 N.I.E. said with "high confidence" that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. That conclusion has been "revalidated every year," according to Ray McGovern. The most recent N.I.E. delivered by the intelligence community provides even "more evidence to support that assessment," according to sources of investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. General James Clapper, who was responsible for preparing the N.I.E., said that "the bottom-line assessments of the N.I.E. still hold true. We have not seen indications that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the program". When Senate Armed Service Committee chair Carl Levin asked General Clapper if the level of confidence that Iran has not restarted a nuclear weapons program was high, Clapper answered, "Yes, it is". Hersh quotes a retired senior intelligence officer as saying "none of our efforts--informants, penetrations, planting of sensors-leads to a bomb".

The history of the C.I.A. is, unfortunately, replete with examples of directors lying to the President and the Congress about what the C.I.A. knew. But those lies were always told by them to defend and protect their agency and to insist that the C.I.A. was right. In his testimony, Brennan lied to the senate by deceptively saying that the best analysis of the agency he heads is wrong. The director of the C.I.A. testified that Iran is bent on pursuing nuclear weapons by dismissing the conclusions of the C.I.A. he directs. And that is hypocritical. It is also foreboding. Brennan, like Tennet before him with regard to Iraq, twisted the intelligence to fit the politics.

The third face of the current generation of hypocrisy on Iran is the hypocrisy on monitoring Iran. Recently, the United Nations General Assembly voted by an overwhelming 174-6 to approve a resolution calling on Israel to open up her nuclear weapons program to international inspectors and to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Only five countries joined Israel in opposing the resolution: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau (all three of which have compacts of free association with the U.S. and never cast their votes at the U.N. inconsistently with America), Canada and the United States.

Iran, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. And Iran is being closely monitored. However, the U.S. still pushes for more, and Iran still faces crushing sanctions and constant threat of war. When the whole world, though, asks Israel to have her nuclear weapons program monitored and to be brought within the framework of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the U.S. votes no. For the Iranians, this American U.N. vote must be the most glaring example of hypocrisy of all.


http://www.zcommunications.org/america-iran-and-continuing-patterns-of-hypocrisy-by-ted-snider

... Iran should have nuclear weapons. It's the best way to equalize the balance of power and grant their sovereignty and security.

....Only Israel should have nukes...apparently...

I just found out last year that it takes uranium to treat cancer with radiation.

Is it ok if Iranians use enough nuclear power for radiation to treat their 1000's of people with cancer. .much of it as the result of weapons dropped in Iran from Iraq which was supported by the US.

Is that ok?

Colbalt and Cesium are the two most common sources. Most radiation treatment does not use radioactive material at all - linear accelerators are use to accelerate particles such as photons.


Iran does not need to purify uranium to treat cancer.

but they're all ready to use their 2nd Amendment Solution so we are skeert of them.

Besides, they're not X-Tians and thus bad per Rand Paul. Yup, that must be it.

Nothing to do with that treaty we and 188 other countries signed on to. And it appears this policy isworking on the Iranian people as they didn't keep Imadinnerjacket in power.

You know, the guy who wanted to hurry up the 2nd Coming. Like a lot of Neo-Cons do. Strange, that.

IDK where you find this stuff, ProSense, but good job as always...

I know you know this, but I wanted to say (not to you, in general,) it isn't just about Israel (despite the cries of the desperately stupid and bigoted). Iran getting nukes would upset the balance in the region. The Kingdom of Saud would be the next to try, and then how many more? What about the smaller countries? They are afraid of Iran, the only thing they share in common is their hate of Israel. Think about it, Israel allegedly (and I believe they do) has scores of nuclear weapons, and has had them for years; so why, now, all of the sudden, everyone is hankering for nukes? Though the Council remains the same, the new president is appearing to be a moderate; that wouldn't have happened without the approval of the Council. Maybe, just maybe, things are about to change! (for the better)

with some saying that the Wahabists and Al Queda are both run by Jews! Ah, ain't that special!

Of course the Bankster© thing is in there, too. I'd never have believed a new generation would fallfor the same things poeple did in the 1930's. It never ends, does it?

Get back to your points in a little bit. Thanks.

No, seriously, someone (the white supremacist, not the person who posted the thread) is peddling that crap. It is posted in V&M, check it out, it is some funny stuff!

Anti-Israel (banksters are all Jews, don't you know), end the Fed, taxes, watch out for the FEMA camps, microchips, gunz, he's got it all!

Also on the SPLC hate list, so now he calls them a hate group. I'm too old to fall for this stuff, never thought I'd see the day.

Thought people had out grown all of that. Every new generation gets fed the same lies, I guess.