US congress wants its puppets to indict President Ahmadinejad

June 20, 2007 at 11:42 pm (anti-Iran Propaganda)

Aside from the fact that this so-called resolution is based on a falsified translation of the President of Iran’s statement… exactly who is the United States to be passing such resolutions?

The United States government that is responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, just in the past three years – and in the millions over the past decade or two of genocidal sanctions.

If there is a government that should be indicted for genocide it is the US government — not only Iraq, but for the slaughter in Vietnam, the slaughter in Central America — and lets not ever forget the Holocaust of the Native/First Nation peoples of this continent – for which the American government has never been held accountable.

Of-course, this has nothing to do with standing up for human rights – or being against genocide – this has everything to do with increasing the psychological pressure on the Iranian government that chooses to remain outside of the American puppet sphere.

This afternoon the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to urge the United Nations to indict the President of Iran for inciting genocide. The charge is over a disproven allegation (based on a mistranslation) that Ahmadinejad was called for the destruction of Israel.

Only two members of the House voted against the resolution, Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Eleven members voted “present” indicating a weak opposition. Usually-consistently-antiwar Rep. Barbara Lee supported the hawks in this vote.

see also Vineyard’s blog entry on this “resolution.”


1 Comment

  1. vineyardsaker said,

    Have We Forgotten 2003 Already? Statement on H Con Res 21 by Ron Paul

    This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran. Citing various controversial statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this legislation demands that the United Nations Security Council charge Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

    Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.

    Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”

    I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. General William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the U.S. thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the U.S. from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: