But it’s important not to distort what it says.

Ira writes: “The legislation calls for ‘prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; and imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.’ This certainly sounds as if the resolution is seeking the blockade which Prime Minister Olmert had requested.”

The part you left out, the beginning of paragraph (3) of the resolution (after all those “whereases”), reads:

“(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products… [etc.]”

That part about the “international effort” is important. There is no language in the resolution supporting a unilateral US military/naval blockade. The “international effort” language may be cold comfort to you, and we can discuss the merits of that (I might well agree), but it’s important to be honest about what the resolution says, and not to (1) quote it selectively and then (2) immediately claim that “This certainly sounds as if the resolution is seeking the blockade which Prime Minister Olmert had requested.”

It’s worth noting that the companion Senate resolution, S.Res.580, contains a less-draconian set of sanctions and also explicitly states that it should not be construed as authorizing the use of force.

” (3) demands that the President lead an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the pressure on the Government of Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, among other measures, banning the importation of refined petroleum products to Iran; and

(4) asserts that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of force against Iran.”

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.RES.580:

DB – are you aware of how often you write, essentially, this same sentence?

Why not move from the margins and get into the mix? Write some essays… get into the ring, throw some punches, take some punches, and say what you think needs to be said. Obviously you’re passionate, bright, thoughtful, sincere -
Write and fight and stop hiding out in the shadows, tossing stones at the participants.
Who else do you think should be responsible for saying the things that DeadBeat thinks is important?

To JoeBlow…

I appreciate your critique of my comments. I agree with you that I should write some articles and commentary and get into the fray as you say. However I’m just a Deadbeat JoeBlow like yourself who has to work 16/7 to pay bills.

However, Ironically your critique would appear that you are engaging in the same “stone tossing”. I’m glad however that I can make quick commentary and with your critique confirm that there are people reading my remarks. Often time a sharp remark can be more biting and cut to the truth than lengthy prose.

Also to submit an article, a REAL article, especially from the vantage point of where I sit will require a tremendous amount of vetting. Why? because those on the left who engage in repeating the “conventional wisdom” do not have to offer any real facts or evidence to support their arguments. When someone on the left utters “War for Oil” how many like yourself Joe demand that they provide proof and references for such assertions.

Fortunately for both me and you there are much better authors and voices who have vetted the facts — Dr. Petras among them who has a new book coming out this month.

Perhaps I will take you up on the challenge and collect my remarks on DV and synthesis them into an article. But like I stated, when you are on the far side of controversy you have to put in an enormous amount of effort to vet everything you say.

Thanks,
Deadbeat

One thing I’ll never forget is how I told one of the AIPAC interns that both sides seem to make decent arguments but I told him about a documentary I watched which talked about the Israelis bulldozing Palestinians homes to build more settlements. His response was, basically, the Israelis have given the Palestinians so many chances for peace that they (Israel) have to do what they have to do to protect themselves. However, his tone was a little more frustrated and very unsympathetic. I didn’t know what to say then but upon thinking about it, while I understand that Israel needs to protect itself, that does not justify their illegal occupation, their horrible treatment of the Palestinians, violations of international law, and other morally reprehensible actions.

I’m really glad that more people are beginning to wake up to Israel’s wrongdoing and criticize its actions. Unfortunately, the peace movement has a long way to go in putting a stop to Israel’s brutal occupation. But let’s keep up the great work.

or

American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)?

Sorry to be picky. Good article, though.

DB – are you aware of how often you write, essentially, this same sentence?

Why not move from the margins and get into the mix? Write some essays… get into the ring, throw some punches, take some punches, and say what you think needs to be said. Obviously you’re passsionate, bright, thoughtful, sincere –
Write and fight and stop hiding out in the shadows, tossing stones at the participants.
Who else do you think should be responsible for saying the things that DeadBeat thinks is important?

I am not naive, but I think there is more threat to vote with Isreal than substance.

George

still, most or perhaps all or near all commentators/critics still avoid to posit the obvious or desirable truth that no one can wage a war based on truth.

It is obvious that the ruling class wage wars based on lies. Therefore we expect the Left to tell the truth to as a counterweight of the ruling class lies. Thus it is critical that the Left adheres to and promotes principles of truth and justice in order to build solidarity.

The problem many prominent members of the Left is in the business of obscuring the truth which essentially benefits the ruling class.