THE LACK OF MILITARY SERVICE AMONG US SENATORS PUSHING WAR WITH IRAN & Imposing more sanctions on Iran would not just trash nuclear talks, it would hurt Iranian reformers 16&14JAN14

HERE are the war pig senators who are sponsoring sen robert menendez's D NJ bill, S 1881, to increase sanctions on Iran in opposition to the nuclear reduction agreement just negotiated by the U.S., our European partners and Iran. This agreement decreases tensions in the Persian Gulf and starts the process of eliminating Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. If passed, S 1881 will only increase tensions and the probability we will be in another war in the region. Before we allow our senators to destroy the beginning of peaceful relations with Iran they should be reminded of their lack of sacrifice for our nation in our military and told they have no right to send our troops to be wounded, crippled and killed to protect their campaign contributions from the pro Israeli lobby in Washington and to protect their campaign contributions from and profit margins of the military-industrial complex. If your senator is sponsoring S 1881 and has not served in the US Military click the link and call them out on their hypocrisy, their willingness to send others to war while they didn't serve. And if they are sponsoring S 1881 and did serve in the US Military send them a message shaming them for their support and remind them a war with Iran will not be a "just" war. If you think you don't know what to say to your senators my letters are below

Tell your senators: Give diplomacy a chance. Oppose the Menendez sanctions on Iran.

Sen. Bob Menendez is pushing forward with legislation to impose new economic sanctions on Iran, a move that could kill the Obama administration’s negotiations to strictly limit Iran’s nuclear program and verify those limits with international inspections.

Simply put, Menendez’s bill could close the door to a diplomatic solution and force a military action against Iran. Worryingly, right now it has 59 34 public supporters, split almost evenly between the two parties, versus only 10 13 public opponents. [Update: The bill has 25 new co-sponsors, all but one of whom is Republican, bringing the total number of public supporters to 59.]

Menendez’s bill is reckless and irresponsible and we need to make sure that senators hear from their constituents on this hugely important issue before a veto-proof majority (67 senators) forms in favor of it.
Here is the link to contact your senators
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=699 

Sen. Mark Warner

District: VAS01

Phone:(202) 224-2023

Fax:(202) 224-6295

My letter to Sen Mark Warner D VA, a cosponsor of S 1881

I am outraged to see that you support Sen. Menendez’s bill to impose new sanctions on Iran. These sanctions could kill the Obama administration’s attempts to end this standoff peacefully.
I disgusted by your decision to support S 1881 to protect your campaign contributions from the pro Israel lobby in D.C. and to protect your campaign contributions from the American military-industrial complex as well as their profit margins. But what is really disgusting is your willingness to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women in an unnecessary war when you yourself have NEVER served our nation in our military.
You have an election coming up. You are already seen as a republican in Democrats clothing, their will be no reason at all to support you over your republican challenger if you support S 1881 or any other legislation like it and take us into another senseless war. I am a member of the Sen Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party, and I wish you had her morals and courage to do the right thing.

Sen. Tim Kaine

District: VAS02

Phone:(202) 224-4024

Fax:(202) 228-6363

My letter to Sen Tim Kaine D VA, undecided at this time

Please oppose the Menendez bill imposing additional sanctions on Iran, and blowing up the diplomatic process.
I expect you to oppose S 1881, rejecting the pressure from the pro Israel lobby in D.C. and the American military-industrial in their attempt to protect their profit margins (and yes, it really is that simple). And since you have never served our nation in the US military I expect you to be extremely hesitant to sacrifice the lives of American service men and women in an unnecessary war, such as a war with Iran. I am a member of the Sen Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party and know you serve with her on the Senate Banking Committee. I suggest you look to her and not Sen Warner for inspiration on how to best serve the people of Virginia and the whole nation as she has the morals and courage sorely need right now in the US Senate.
Here is the link to contact your senators
http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=699 

S.1881 - Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013113th Congress (2013-2014)

Bill

Sponsor:	Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ] (Introduced 12/19/2013)
Cosponsors:	58
Latest Action:	12/20/2013 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 288.
Major Recorded Votes:	There are no Roll Call votes for this bill.

• Cosponsors (58)

Cosponsors: S.1881 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

 Political Party

• Republican [43]
• Democratic [15]

Sort By

* = Original cosponsor

Cosponsor	Date Cosponsored
Democratic Party— Alphabetical
Sen. Begich, Mark [D-AK]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]	01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]*	12/19/2013 USMC RESERVE
Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Donnelly, Joe [D-IN]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Hagan, Kay [D-NC]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Landrieu, Mary L. [D-LA]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]	12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Pryor, Mark L. [D-AR]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Warner, Mark R. [D-VA]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Republican Party— Alphabetical
Sen. Alexander, Lamar [R-TN]	01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Ayotte, Kelly [R-NH]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]	01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Blunt, Roy [R-MO]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]	12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC]	01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Chambliss, Saxby [R-GA]	01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Coats, Daniel [R-IN]	12/20/2013 U.S. ARMY
Sen. Coburn, Tom [R-OK]	01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Cochran, Thad [R-MS]	01/09/2014 U.S. NAVY
Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Corker, Bob [R-TN]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]	01/09/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Enzi, Michael B. [R-WY]	01/06/2014 U.S. AIR NATIONAL GUARD
Sen. Fischer, Deb [R-NE]	01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]*	12/19/2013 USAF ACTIVE DUTY AND RESERVE
Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]	01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT]	01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Heller, Dean [R-NV]	01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND]	01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK]	01/06/2014 U.S. ARMY
Sen. Isakson, Johnny [R-GA]	12/20/2013 U.S. AIR NATIONAL GUARD
Sen. Johanns, Mike [R-NE]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]	01/08/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL]*	12/19/2013 U.S. NAVY
Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]	01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. McCain, John [R-AZ]*	12/19/2013 U.S. NAVY
Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]	01/09/2014 U.S. ARMY RESERVE
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]	12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]	01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]	12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS]*	12/19/2013 USMC
Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]*	12/19/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]	01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Sessions, Jeff [R-AL]	01/09/2014 U.S. ARMY RESERVE
Sen. Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL]	01/09/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Thune, John [R-SD]	01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Toomey, Pat [R-PA]	01/06/2014 NO MILITARY SERVICE
Sen. Vitter, David [R-LA]	12/20/2013 NO MILITARY SERVICE 01/06/2014 U.S. AIR FORCE
Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS] http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1881/cosponsors?pageSort=alphaByParty Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 02:52 PM PST Imposing more sanctions on Iran would not just trash nuclear talks, it would hurt Iranian reformers by Meteor Blades Iran's not-yet-completed heavy-water-moderated nuclear reactor at Arak. Further development at the reactor is frozen as part of the six-month Geneva agreement. President Obama won't, but perhaps should, make the 16 Democratic senators who have signed up to pass more economic sanctions on Iran sit on the floor when the Democratic caucus gets together with him at the White House Wednesday evening. With the start date for a six-month interim agreement curtailing Iran's nuclear program now firmly set for Jan. 20, there are zero good reasons for adding sanctions or threatening to add sanctions if the talks for a permanent agreement don't pan out during those six months. Whether or not one agrees that currently existing sanctions are a good thing and forced the Iranians to the negotiating table with the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany, adding more sanctions would be worse than counterproductive. Iran's foreign minister said a month ago that doing so would bring an end to further negotiations. But the outcome would be worse than a return to square one. After years of working for a diplomatic solution, albeit while cyber attacks were launched against Iran, an end of negotiations would put us directly on a road to war. Hardliners in Tehran would receive a "we-told-you-so" moment with which to cudgel Iranian moderates, like President Hassan Rouhani, who have a hard enough time as it is making political headway under the ruling hand of the mullahs. And if hardliners in Iran reassert their hard grasp on policy, hardliners in the United States won't be far behind. Why these 16 Democrats want to give the bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran factions of the U.S. and Israel a political edge against President Obama's Iran's policy is beyond understanding unless they all along have stood with them. Before you read further analysis below the fold, please join us in backing diplomacy with opposition to Sen. Menendez's legislation. David Brumberg, special adviser at the 30-year-old U.S. Institute of Peace, writes: If by 2010 U.S. military leaders were signaling their lack of enthusiasm for an attack, this was because many had concluded that a military approach required weeks if not months of war with Iran—after Iraq and Afghanistan it wasn't only the American public that opposed new military adventures. Such calculations pointed to only one reasonable option: a diplomatic solution. It is interesting to note that the Obama administration apparently came to this conclusion months before Hassan Rouhani's surprise election—well before most U.S. Iran experts could envision Iran's domestic politics tolerating the return of former Ambassador to the UN Javad Zarif, and his pragmatic foreign policy camp, as Rouhani's foreign minister. Now that they are leading Iran's nuclear policy tea—with, of course, the Supreme Leader's critical blessing (or at least acquiescence)—the challenge facing the administration is to negotiate a final deal that Zarif and his allies can defend as a reasonable compromise without provoking retaliation from either domestic hard-line opponents or those in the U.S. and the Middle East who still think that Iran's total capitulation is a feasible goal. Creating this sweet spot will be impossible if the U.S. imposes more sanctions. The oft-repeated Washington mantra that "sanctions got the Iranians to negotiate" is true, but only in a very limited sense: Sanctions have enhanced the domestic leverage of foreign policy pragmatists who, under Zarif's leadership, argue that the Obama administration is ready for a compromise that includes removing all nuclear-related restrictions. New sanctions will not only destroy the pragmatists' credibility—it will decimate their wider bid to advance a new domestic reform project. New sanctions will not only destroy the pragmatists' credibility—it will decimate their wider bid to advance a new domestic reform project. From that perspective, not only would a breakdown of negotiations fail to ensure that Iran does not build a nuclear bomb—something Iran says it is not doing and some U.S. intelligence officials publicly have said they don't think it is doing—but it also would harm the prospects of Iranians who seek democratic reform, many of them at the risk of their lives or imprisonment. It's not only this cohort of Democratic senators who want to give the finger to diplomacy. Some Democrats in the House have joined Republicans in signing a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in which they "urge you and your colleagues in the Senate to act swiftly to continue consideration of rigorous Iran sanctions legislation." That legislation—S. 1881, the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013—has plenty wrong with it. But, as I've noted before, the worst is in Section 2 (b) (5): if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence Stripped to its essentials, what this means is that if Israel decides to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and Iran strikes back, the U.S. would be committed to use military force against Iran. Utterly upside-down. Patricia Zengerle and Timothy Gardner at Reuters report that setting Jan. 20 as the start date for Iran's freezing of most of its nuclear development while talks are underway on a permanent agreement may reduce the drive for more sanctions. Perhaps. That would certainly be welcome news. But the two reporters don't really make a good case for it, and there's no evidence that Sen. Bob Menendez, who introduced the new sanctions legislation, has given up trying to add to the 58 senators who are co-sponsoring the bill with him.  ••• ••• David Harris Gershon has a post about this subject here. Karen from Maui has one here. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/14/1269637/-Imposing-more-sanctions-on-Iran-would-not-just-trash-nuclear-talks-it-would-hurt-Iranian-reformers?detail=action