Kucinich: Iran Sanctions would not Help Diplomatic Talks
by Congressman Dennis Kucinich
October 13, 2009
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a long time advocate for peace and nuclear abolition, was today the only Member of Congress to speak out against H.R. 1327 – Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009.
“In 1996, Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act which sanctioned foreign investment in Iran’s energy sector. There are those who have said it didn’t accomplish much. There are those who are now saying, that if we move forward with sanctions it would undermine the interests of nations, like China and Russia, which the U.S. needs to work with in order to bring Iran into the international community in a way that promotes international security.
“U.S. policy towards Iran for the last three decades has consisted of pressure, primarily in the form of economic sanctions, threats and isolationism.
“While U.S. economic sanctions have hurt Iran’s economy, U.S. policy over the last thirty years has not created any meaningful change in the behavior of the Iranian government.
“On October 1, there was a change. For the first time in the recent past, high level delegations from Iran, the US and other industrialized nations sat down to diplomatic talks. There was significant progress. Among the steps forward was an agreement by Iran to allow access by the International Atomic Energy Agency to the recently revealed planned enrichment facility.
“Yet, with signs of progress in these highly sensitive talks, we are proposing to punish Iran. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that diplomacy – and President Obama – succeed.
“Sanctions will not help with diplomatic talks or assist us in our efforts to bring Iran into a new position in the world community. The United States cannot be in a position of picking nuclear winners and losers. Ultimately, we need to get every nation involved in nuclear abolition,” said Kucinich
Kucinich: Military Presence in Afghanistan is Counterproductive
by Congressman Dennis Kucinich
October 13, 2009
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has been a leading advocate against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, today made the following statement after the Washington Post and other media outlets reported that the Pentagon has authorized the deployment of an additional 13,000 troops to Afghanistan to primarily serve in a support capacity:
“It is not simply combat troops that present a problem, but our entire military presence is counterproductive to our security. Sending additional military personnel indicates that we are deepening our military involvement in Afghanistan.
“Afghanistan is a nation of independent tribes that is rife with corruption. Nation building cannot come from the barrel of a gun. Instead the United States should work with Afghanistan’s neighbors to help provide regional security to allow the Afghan people to rebuild their nation. It is time that Congress takes control of this war by eliminating its funding and bringing our troops home.”
Scott Ritter on Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton (must-listen)
Fmr. UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter Warns Against “Politically Motivated Hype” on Iran Nuke Program
Beneath the hype: How would a US-Iran war begin?
Israel’s nukes and Iran + What’s intelligence got to do with it?
Number of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Overlooks Thousands of Support Troops
The fishermen of Afghanistan, an allegory on catching insurgents
A Letter From Afghanistan: Bagram, Afghan suffering and the futility of war
Pingback: Saving Face in Afghanistan By Ron Paul « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: A Trail of Failed Policies and Lost Battles By Talha Mujaddidi « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Frontline: Obama’s War « Dandelion Salad
When John Pilger interviewed a UN representative in his film Paying the Price- Killing the Children of Iraq, he got him to admit that sanctions are the last step before war and are meant to hurt the civilian population. In my opinion, it is a nicer sounding word for what used to be called an embargo. It is similar to collateral damage once being called civilian deaths. Hopefully, Russia and China can fly in supplies and break the embargo. This is a sad fact for nuclear disarmament, but notice how the saber-rattling stops once a country develops nuclear weapons. When North Korea developed nuclear weapons, the threats and name calling pretty much stopped, although not completely. If Iran were attacked, I don’t know if the situation could be stopped before a near World War or nuclear conflagration took place. Israel certainly would be attacked and one escalation would lead to another one. If Iran actually possessed nuclear weapons, I think the United States would back off. The United States is like the neighborhood bully. It only attacks countries it is positive it can defeat militarily-Grenada, Panama, Iraq twice and Afghanistan, among others. Regardless of US propaganda to the contrary, I have listened to Ahmadinejad’s speeches and I don’t think he is a mad man, anymore then the leader of North Korea is a mad man. I am more afraid that the United States would use nuclear weapons against other countries. The US has neutron bombs, which kill mainly people, as well as smaller versions of atom bombs. Also, the depleted uranium they have already dropped is a form of nuclear warfare, and the United States has dropped tons of it on various countries, even many in the former Yugoslavia. Then, there is the incontrovertible fact that the United States is the only country in the world to actually use fissionable nuclear weapons, the victims being Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese were willing to surrender. This was done solely to demonstrate the killing power of nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union. In the past 60 years the United States has started war after war after war. No other country can even come close. As far as being totally vaporized is concerned, i am more worried by the Pentagon than any of these other countrries the corporate media want me to spend sleepless nights thinking about..