Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE House Resolution (HR) Thread (merged)

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby Peleg » Thu 24 Jul 2008, 02:55:03

Was this thing ever for real?
User avatar
Peleg
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue 20 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 24 Jul 2008, 08:45:16

An important point to consider when thinking about the so called Iran blockade. The oil that leaves Iran by tanker doesn't belong to Iran: it belongs to the purchasers who are Europeans for the most part. Typically the title to the oil is transfered to the importers before it's even pumped from storage. And the tankers are not owned by Iran. Blockading Itanian exports would be no different than stopping a Greek owned tanker as it was trying to dock in Germany.

Anyone think this would sit well with our "allies"?
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby dorlomin » Thu 24 Jul 2008, 10:15:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'A')n important point to consider when thinking about the so called Iran blockade. The oil that leaves Iran by tanker doesn't belong to Iran: it belongs to the purchasers who are Europeans for the most part. Typically the title to the oil is transfered to the importers before it's even pumped from storage. And the tankers are not owned by Iran. Blockading Itanian exports would be no different than stopping a Greek owned tanker as it was trying to dock in Germany.

Anyone think this would sit well with our "allies"?
If the embargo is endorsed by the security council, then the act of purchasing the oil would be illegal and entitled to sezure, if it were endorsed by NATO, it would be a technicaly illegal blockade but the EU would tow the same line as if it were an UN blockade. If the US allies in Europe were not onboard and considered the blockade illegal then seizing the cargo could be intereptated as an act of war against the nation the ship is flagged by, not that the USN has much to fear from the Liberian navy. It is a very very emotive issue in international affairs for the US as freedom of the seas was the main driving force in the 1812 war (as well as the kidnapping and press ganging of US sailors), WWI (the sinking of ships in international waters by the Kaiserliche Marine) and again in WWII when the Kriegsmarine were impeding trade and sunk the USS Rubin James. For the US to conduct a blockade without explicit approval of its European and certain other allies would place it as effectively being a pirate state (a la the Barbary wars), I doubt anyone I dumb enough to let this happen, it may take monumental arm twisting but bribes would have to be paid and arms twisted to get others onboard.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby dorlomin » Thu 24 Jul 2008, 10:23:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SILENTTODD', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('idiom', 'A') war with Iran will leave America in control of a huge swathe of the Middle East running from Afghanistan to Iraq.

With that size Islamic population under American occupation, with that amount of Oil under Ameircan control, the balance of global power destabilse quickly.


idiom, believe me I'm on your side! America does not possess an army big enough to occupy the middle east.

It hasn't since about 1945!
Britain ruled India for over 100 years with an army totaling about 30 000 (in India). (Indias population would have been in the region of 300 million). It did this by using local troops to do the occupying, like say hiring the Nothern Alliance in Afghanistan and creating the Badr dominated Iraqi Army in Iraq (also using local levies like the 'Iraq Awakening' in Sunni and Peshmerga in Kurdistan. To occupy the Iranian oil region woudl require defeating the Iranian army in the field and by and large driving them out of Khunenistan (sp?) which is prodominantly ethnic Arab and simply creating a force to self govern the region.

Imperialism is not about occupying everything yourself, but getting locals onside to do the job for you. The failure of the neocons is they got caught up in there rhetoric of the early 90s (The End of History and the Last Man Standing they boasted loudly) the beleif they had the only true answer to liberety, while they were co-opted by agressive imperialist ambitions (often in the same person) that they were never a real imperialist force nor a liberator.

But that does not mean they cannot learn as Patreaus' Iraqi Awakening proves. Dont discount an invasion because you cannot concieve of how it will work. Its a low probibility outcome though due to real politik in Baghdad, Aman and Cairo.......
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 24 Jul 2008, 12:39:49

Well detailed dorlomin. I suppose if the US offered to replace the lost EU imports with our oil they might support us. OK...everyone in congress ready to start exporting our oil to Europe raise you hands.

Hmmm....thought so.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby Viper » Thu 24 Jul 2008, 14:31:07

I think you guys have the bills backwards. The proposal is not to prevent Iran from exporting anything. The proposed blockade is to prevent Iran from being able to IMPORT refined petroleum products.

AKA - the proposal is to cut off 40% of Iran's current oil consumption.
User avatar
Viper
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat 05 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: MO

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby IndigoMoon » Mon 28 Jul 2008, 22:57:55

I wish I would have kept copies of this from the time it was introduced. I think the wording has been changing. The co-sponsor count is now at 252.
LINK
H.CON.RES.362
Title: Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] (introduced 5/22/2008) Cosponsors (252)
Related Bills: S.RES.580
Latest Major Action: 5/22/2008 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
5/22/2008--Introduced.

Declares that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability through economic, political, and diplomatic means is vital to U.S. national security.

Urges the President to use his authority to impose sanctions on: (1) Iranian banks engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups; (2) international banks which conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks; (3) energy companies with large investments in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector; and (4) all companies which do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Demands that the President initiate an international effort to increase economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities.

Urges the President to lead a regional diplomatic effort to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian destabilization efforts.
Live simply, love generously, care deeply, and speak kindly.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass;
It's about learning how to dance in the rain.
User avatar
IndigoMoon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun 25 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: NE Ohio

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby idiom » Tue 29 Jul 2008, 07:55:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')rges the President to lead a regional diplomatic effort to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian destabilization efforts.


Lol. Point out just one.
User avatar
idiom
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon 23 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 29 Jul 2008, 12:50:43

Viper --that's a great point if correct. But then it makes me wonder who is selling refined products to Iran. I also wonder how they would respond to the US killing their cash flow. You have an idea who their sources are?
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby Viper » Tue 29 Jul 2008, 15:34:43

India used to be a big gasoline source for Iran, but I think they've cut off Iran's credit. Not sure who picked up after that...

Did find this interesting quote though:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ran imported 150,000 barrels per day of gasoline in 2005, versus total consumption of 400,000 bpd, making it the second biggest gasoline importer after the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.


Probably means that cutting them off would be significant.
User avatar
Viper
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat 05 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: MO
Top

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 29 Jul 2008, 16:54:08

Thanks viper. I'll dig around a little too. This may be a more interesting thread than I thought at first
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby mos6507 » Tue 29 Jul 2008, 17:40:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('idiom', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')rges the President to lead a regional diplomatic effort to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian destabilization efforts.


Lol. Point out just one.


He might be talking about Lebanon. The central government of Lebanon is pretty moderate by middle eastern standards. It's the cancer of Iranian-supplied Hezbollah operating with impunity there and Syrian meddling that screws that country up.

But of course, the last time we really tried to help Lebanon our troops got blown up.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby hermit » Wed 30 Jul 2008, 09:17:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')
But of course, the last time we really tried to help Lebanon our troops got blown up.



help? HELP? Hahahhaha..

Are you able to open your mouth without lying?
User avatar
hermit
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue 13 May 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

Unread postby SILENTTODD » Sat 02 Aug 2008, 15:46:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', 'B')ritain ruled India for over 100 years with an army totaling about 30 000 (in India). (Indias population would have been in the region of 300 million). It did this by using local troops to do the occupying, like say hiring the Nothern Alliance in Afghanistan and creating the Badr dominated Iraqi Army in Iraq (also using local levies like the 'Iraq Awakening' in Sunni and Peshmerga in Kurdistan. To occupy the Iranian oil region woudl require defeating the Iranian army in the field and by and large driving them out of Khunenistan (sp?) which is prodominantly ethnic Arab and simply creating a force to self govern the region.

Imperialism is not about occupying everything yourself, but getting locals onside to do the job for you. The failure of the neocons is they got caught up in there rhetoric of the early 90s (The End of History and the Last Man Standing they boasted loudly) the beleif they had the only true answer to liberety, while they were co-opted by agressive imperialist ambitions (often in the same person) that they were never a real imperialist force nor a liberator.

But that does not mean they cannot learn as Patreaus' Iraqi Awakening proves. Dont discount an invasion because you cannot concieve of how it will work. Its a low probibility outcome though due to real politik in Baghdad, Aman and Cairo.......

dorlomin, you must have been asleep or maybe not born yet, when America undertook an adventure popularly known as the Vietnam War. For several years America had in excess of 600,000 troops in Vietnam (20 times what you quote for the British), to occupy a country of perhaps 30 million at that time (1/10th the population of India you quote).

The world has changed since the time of PAX Britannia. Ready availability of AK47’s and Katyusha rockets made it obsolete in the modern world.

I agree with Ron Paul. Let’s let people rule themselves. If that means Israel finally stands on its own legs without the involuntary support of American gentiles, that’s just tough!
Skeptical scrutiny in both Science and Religion is the means by which deep thoughts are winnowed from deep nonsense-Carl Sagan
User avatar
SILENTTODD
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat 06 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Corona, CA
Top

HR 875: Fed to massively regulate gardens, farms

Unread postby Jotapay » Sun 08 Mar 2009, 16:45:27

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... l=h111-875

HR 875 establishes the regulation of all food production and storage facilities. Want to grow your own food and store it? You have to keep minutely detailed records and samples now to prove it's safe and must submit to inspections. I suppose if you don't keep all the records showing you meet the requirements that the Fed dreams up for your little garden patch, they will supposedly shut you down and you can't grow vegetables then.

Canning tomatoes in your kitchen will be regulated as a "Category 4 Food Establishment" and "FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY".

Also, $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ection 3, (14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.


There's more: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')EC. 206. FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITIES.

(a) Authorities- In carrying out the duties of the Administrator and the purposes of this Act, the Administrator shall have the authority, with respect to food production facilities, to--

(1) visit and inspect food production facilities in the United States and in foreign countries to determine if they are operating in compliance with the requirements of the food safety law;

(2) review food safety records as required to be kept by the Administrator under section 210 and for other food safety purposes;

(3) set good practice standards to protect the public and animal health and promote food safety;

(4) conduct monitoring and surveillance of animals, plants, products, or the environment, as appropriate; and

(5) collect and maintain information relevant to public health and farm practices.

(b) Inspection of Records- A food production facility shall permit the Administrator upon presentation of appropriate credentials and at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and ability to copy all records maintained by or on behalf of such food production establishment in any format (including paper or electronic) and at any location, that are necessary to assist the Administrator--

(1) to determine whether the food is contaminated, adulterated, or otherwise not in compliance with the food safety law;

(c) Regulations- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture, shall promulgate regulations to establish science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food by food production facilities. Such regulations shall--

(1) consider all relevant hazards, including those occurring naturally, and those that may be unintentionally or intentionally introduced;

(2) require each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;

(3) include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water;

(4) include, with respect to animals raised for food, minimum standards related to the animal’s health, feed, and environment which bear on the safety of food for human consumption;

(5) provide a reasonable period of time for compliance, taking into account the needs of small businesses for additional time to comply;

(6) provide for coordination of education and enforcement activities by State and local officials, as designated by the Governors of the respective States; and

(7) include a description of the variance process under subsection (d) and the types of permissible variances which the Administrator may grant under such process.


And I just planted my spring garden today. I will never let my right to grow my own food be taken from me.
Jotapay
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3394
Joined: Sat 21 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: HR 875: Fed to massively regulate gardens, farms

Unread postby Ludi » Sun 08 Mar 2009, 16:54:29

To hell with them! :x
Ludi
 

Re: HR 875: Fed to massively regulate gardens, farms

Unread postby wisconsindoomslut » Sun 08 Mar 2009, 17:00:23

i belive this is only if you plan on selling to the public AND
even if it's not.......how could "they" ever enforce it????????
User avatar
wisconsindoomslut
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue 18 Nov 2008, 04:00:00

Re: HR 875: Fed to massively regulate gardens, farms

Unread postby Jotapay » Sun 08 Mar 2009, 17:05:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsindoomslut', 'i') belive this is only if you plan on selling to the public AND
even if it's not.......how could "they" ever enforce it????????


I didn't see anything in the bill which corroborates this assertion. The definition of what is regulated does not depend on commerce. It defines what is regulated as any establishment that stores or produces food.

Edit: I really don't see anything that excludes personal production and consumption from regulation here. I don't know the legal definition of "farm" in this context, but I do have a little farm in my backyard by some standards.
Jotapay
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3394
Joined: Sat 21 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: HR 875: Fed to massively regulate gardens, farms

Unread postby dinopello » Sun 08 Mar 2009, 17:28:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsindoomslut', 'i') belive this is only if you plan on selling to the public AND
even if it's not.......how could "they" ever enforce it????????


Yes, but it still may be a problem for small, micro-farms that sell in our public farmers markets and local restaurants. Looking for changes that will remove impact to small operations and add some provisions that will encourage them.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: HR 875: Fed to massively regulate gardens, farms

Unread postby Pops » Sun 08 Mar 2009, 17:33:21

Christ, when will you folks come to realize you have no excuse to not plant a garden and can some food.

The Zombies are in your brain.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests