Go, Obama! ... I think ...
Bu2
Posts: 1,693
Obama targets Iran oil millions Wed May 16, 4:37 PM ET
US Democratic presidential hope Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) polished his national security credentials on Wednesday, introducing a Senate bill encouraging investors to cash out of projects which benefit Iran.
Obama, who most national polls have in second place in the Democratic field behind Hillary Clinton, targeted Iran's lucrative oil and gas industry in a bill spurred by the US belief the Islamic Republic is building nuclear arms.
The measure, also introduced in the House of Representatives by lawmakers Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record) and Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), would help investors and state and local governments divest from instruments which benefit Iran.
"The Iranian government uses the billions of dollars it earns from its oil and gas industry to build its nuclear program and to fund terrorist groups that export its militaristic and radical ideology to Iraq and throughout the Middle East," Obama said in a statement.
"Pressuring companies to cut their financial ties with Iran is critical to ensuring that sanctions have their intended result.
"All Americans can play a role in pressuring companies to cut their ties with the Iranian regime, a state sponsor of terror that is a threat to our allies in the region and international security, as a means of convincing Iran to fundamentally change its policies."
Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee, said the move would help the United States put the "squeeze on Iran."
"It encourages companies and individuals to remove their money from any investment that might support Tehran's heedless quest for nuclear weapons."
Iran denies US claims that it is producing nuclear weapons, but maintains its right to develop nuclear power.
If the move becomes law, it would require the US government to list every six months, companies which have an investment of more than 20 million dollars in Iran's energy sector.
Supporters say it would offer a powerful disincentive for foreign firms to engage with Iran.
US officials said Wednesday that they would continue to press for sanctions against Iran, despite the apparent failure of existing measures to halt Tehran's nuclear drive.
International weapons inspectors on Tuesday confirmed Iran appeared to be making steady progress toward its goal of building 3,000 centrifuges, which could allow it to process enough nuclear material to build one atomic bomb per year.
The UN Security Council adopted a resolution in March imposing sanctions against Iran's missile and nuclear programs after it repeatedly ignored ultimatums to suspend uranium enrichment.
The world body gave Iran 60 days to suspend enrichment or face further punitive measures, meaning that the latest deadline will expire next week.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse
Okay, so you all know by now, Obama is my man. So I shoud be all happy, and stuff, because he's coming up with a new idea that -- up front -- looks like a good one.
But this is the second time my man has mentioned Iran in a way that gets my back up. The first time he did it was when he said "all options should be on the table when it comes to Iran".
He's playing up the Iran thing. It's starting to make me a little nervous.
Somebody help me through my mid-primary crisis, here.
US Democratic presidential hope Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) polished his national security credentials on Wednesday, introducing a Senate bill encouraging investors to cash out of projects which benefit Iran.
Obama, who most national polls have in second place in the Democratic field behind Hillary Clinton, targeted Iran's lucrative oil and gas industry in a bill spurred by the US belief the Islamic Republic is building nuclear arms.
The measure, also introduced in the House of Representatives by lawmakers Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record) and Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), would help investors and state and local governments divest from instruments which benefit Iran.
"The Iranian government uses the billions of dollars it earns from its oil and gas industry to build its nuclear program and to fund terrorist groups that export its militaristic and radical ideology to Iraq and throughout the Middle East," Obama said in a statement.
"Pressuring companies to cut their financial ties with Iran is critical to ensuring that sanctions have their intended result.
"All Americans can play a role in pressuring companies to cut their ties with the Iranian regime, a state sponsor of terror that is a threat to our allies in the region and international security, as a means of convincing Iran to fundamentally change its policies."
Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee, said the move would help the United States put the "squeeze on Iran."
"It encourages companies and individuals to remove their money from any investment that might support Tehran's heedless quest for nuclear weapons."
Iran denies US claims that it is producing nuclear weapons, but maintains its right to develop nuclear power.
If the move becomes law, it would require the US government to list every six months, companies which have an investment of more than 20 million dollars in Iran's energy sector.
Supporters say it would offer a powerful disincentive for foreign firms to engage with Iran.
US officials said Wednesday that they would continue to press for sanctions against Iran, despite the apparent failure of existing measures to halt Tehran's nuclear drive.
International weapons inspectors on Tuesday confirmed Iran appeared to be making steady progress toward its goal of building 3,000 centrifuges, which could allow it to process enough nuclear material to build one atomic bomb per year.
The UN Security Council adopted a resolution in March imposing sanctions against Iran's missile and nuclear programs after it repeatedly ignored ultimatums to suspend uranium enrichment.
The world body gave Iran 60 days to suspend enrichment or face further punitive measures, meaning that the latest deadline will expire next week.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse
Okay, so you all know by now, Obama is my man. So I shoud be all happy, and stuff, because he's coming up with a new idea that -- up front -- looks like a good one.
But this is the second time my man has mentioned Iran in a way that gets my back up. The first time he did it was when he said "all options should be on the table when it comes to Iran".
He's playing up the Iran thing. It's starting to make me a little nervous.
Somebody help me through my mid-primary crisis, here.
Feels Good Inc.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
But what bothers me is he's suddenly grabbing hold of the "terrorism" argument to get bills passed and that's so.....Republican.
Another gloss and shine horse and pony show...
He already has the hooks on his back where the puppet strings attach...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Who do you support?
anarchy...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Really? i may be completely ignorant on the subject, but isn't obama raising his money through small contributions by millions of contributors as opposed to huge donations by oil companies? also does'nt he write his own speeches, and speak without a script or notes on many occasions? again, i am not stating this as fact, but it was my impression.... that sounds way more independent than owing oil companies billions of dollars by the time you take office, and have a team of professional writers control everything you say......
Why do people support him in the first place? really, what has he done or said that makes him such a good choice?
Yep they have been in there for a while now.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
As for the whole "all options are on the table" line, that's such a platitude I'm not sure it even means anything - outside of simply saying "don't forget, I'm armed." It's ridiculous posturing, but voters do respond to it.
Who's pulling yours?
I don't really think it is ridiculous posturing. It needs to be said, especially with liberal politicians running around screaming about NOT using military force under any circumstances.
"All options on the table" says hey let's try to work this out peacefully but at the end of the day, we're not going to let you have a bomb.
"The use of force is not an option" says hey let's try to work this out peacefully, but at the end of the day if you do end up getting a bomb we're not going to do anything meaningful "aka" fight about it.
For people who view the US in the mannor in which the Iranian government does, option 2 is an open invitation for them to take advantage of our good will.
All anyone has to do is view our disaster in Iraq to make the argument that maybe we aren't as hard as we say. And everyone laughs when the embarased tough guy tries to act all tough again.
Another analogy would be the guy who constantly tells everyone how big his dick is.
And for the record, it's not just liberal politicians who want to tone down the militant rhetoric. See Ron Paul.
All options on the table is NOT a given with respect to the Iran/nuclear issue. There are many in congress/government, see Ron Paul, who would rather live with a nuclear armed Iran than resort to military force to prevent it.
Iran announced last week that they are enriching uranium on an industrial scale. This is pretty much an announcement to the world that they are now a nuclear power. It is only a matter of time before they have enough material to build a bomb. So at this point, the only sanctions that will work are the ones that will require a monumental and global effort to enforce. This small esculation of ankle-biting sanctions and resolutions isn't going to make the Iranians stop their encrichment.
Basically, we have to pull China, Russia and the EU together and stand in unison on full-scale economic sanctions for Iran. If China and Russia don't want a war, they better get on board.
At the end of the day, Isreal is going to take action regardless what the rest of us do, and who can blame them?
At one point, we had some real barganing chips. But now we don't, and Iran knows it. They're not stupid. If we had a fully loaded and ready military, they might posture, but they wouldn't produce. Now, what's going to stop them? War? Why not - because it wouldn't just be us against them (saying we'd persue this unilaterally like we did in Iraq), but us against the entire region; because we now have enemies all over the place - and they are legion. You can argue that we had these enemies before Iraq, and you'd be right, but we didn't have them like we do now. We're stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea for the time being.
How do we back up our talk if Europe, China and Russia don't all sign on? You can say "all options are on the table," and you'd literally be right - only we don't have as many options as before. So, when do we invade?
mid-primary crisis? it's not even a pre-primary crisis yet lol... I can't believe that we actually have 3 year presidential campaigns.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
omg?! a sphincter says what?
RU even close to serious?
Oh wait I get it...you were being what you thought was cute and and really smart at the time...
lol...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
...that's some pretty messed up propaganda stuffed opinion right there...
I can't believe I just read that...
.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I can't believe it either but it seems just like the Republicans supported Bush through whatever...Dems are gonna be no better. There's really no difference and we've known that.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
there are differnces on social issues
Not a big enough difference.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i agree with that
but you are supporting a great Democratic candidate in 2008, just as i am
Sometimes I think the United States is just doomed to run around the globe sucking up resources and bonking people on the head in the process.. well murdering them I guess...
A predominantly mindless population of zombies that don't want to think, or perhaps even have time (or can set aside time) to think. They are happy to eat sleep and dream whatever they are told on the dummy tube.
And it makes them warm and fuzzy this level of ignorance does....and of course why shouldn't it. I know it's a lot to ask people to become educated in politics. Most brains just shut down and go to sleep long before real thought ever occurs...
America...the new Roman empire.
.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I don't want to bomb Iran.
when i hear that i immediately think of McCain making a world class ass of himself
that is what he said, right?
(follow)Usama?
---
Yeah...
"bomb bomb bomb iran" is what he sang.
That post wasn't meant to be taken as directly at you. I worry about Dems and also independents supporting a candidate that might take us into another war. It's nothing personal. I dislike religious fanatics, as well but I am also very weary using them for political posturing. Please excuse my edgyness but this seems a bit like deja vu.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
All candidates (even Kucinich) have the potential to take us into another war - as the path to any future war will not necessarily be the same path that lead us into past ones.