This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The National Attack Authorization Act?

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

The National Attack Authorization Act?

We all know that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed by President Obama on New Year’s Eve contained a now-struck-down provision to authorise the indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil.

But did you know that the NDAA also paves the way for war with Iran?

From Dennis Kucinich:

Section (6) rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran. Section (7) urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and opposition to any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to Iranian enrichment.

 

This language represents a significant shift in U.S. policy and would guarantee that talks with Iran, currently scheduled for May 23, would fail. Current U.S. policy is that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. Instead, H. Res. 568 draws the “redline” for military action at Iran achieving a nuclear weapons “capability,” a nebulous and undefined term that could include a civilian nuclear program. Indeed, it is likely that a negotiated deal to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and to prevent war would provide for Iranian enrichment for peaceful purposes under the framework of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty with strict safeguards and inspections. This language makes such a negotiated solution impossible.

 

At the same time, the language lowers the threshold for attacking Iran. Countries with nuclear weapons “capability” could include many other countries like Japan or Brazil. It is an unrealistic threshold.

 

The Former Chief of Staff of Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated that this resolution “reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war.”

The notion of a “nuclear weapons capability” seems like a dangerously low standard. Let us not forget that Mossad, the CIA and the IAEA agree  that Iran does not have a bomb, is not building one, has no plans to build one.

But the bill clearly spells out its intent:

SEC. 1222. UNITED STATES MILITARY PREPAREDNESS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

 

Section 2 (A) pre-positioning sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions, fuel, and other materials for both air- and sea-based missions at key forward locations in the Middle East and Indian Ocean;

 

(B) maintaining sufficient naval assets in the region necessary to signal United States resolve and to bolster United States capabilities to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets, to protect seaborne shipping, and to deny Iranian retaliation against United States interests in the region;

 

(D) conducting naval fleet exercises similar to the United States Fifth Fleet’s major exercise in the region in March 2007 to demonstrate ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and to counter the use of anti-ship missiles and swarming high-speed boats.

As Kucinch notes:

This is an authorization for the use of military force against Iran. It ignores the warnings of both current and former U.S. top military brass who have spoken in opposition to the use of military force against Iran, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. A February 2012 poll demonstrated that less than 20% of the Israeli public supports an Israeli strike on Iran if approved by the United States. Congress must avoid the same mistakes it made in the Iraq war and reject any language that can be construed as authorizing war against Iran.

It seems like the framers of the bill are exceptionally keen on striking Iran as quickly as possible. Maybe they are receiving lots of money from defence contractors?

Unsurprisingly, the biggest Congressional recipient of donations from defence contractors was Howard “Buck” McKeon, the chairman of the armed services committee who also happens to be the sponsor of the NDAA:

The fact that Ron Paul is the number two recipient is a sign that not all defence contractors are keen to hit Iran. But some are.

Still, even though the bill hints very strongly toward it, it doesn’t mean that it is going to happen. Congressmen might be hungry for a war but the military — already overstretched — isn’t. Admiral Fallon was reportedly the force that kept Bush from hitting Iran, and it would not be surprising to see the Pentagon put up fierce opposition to a future war with Iran. It would be a long, expensive war, with the potential of massive negative side-effects, like dragging in other regional powers, disrupting global trade, and squeezing the US economy by spiking the oil price.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:54 | 2469237 Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

"Let us not forget that Mossad, the CIA and the IAEA agree that Iran does not have a bomb, is not building one, has no plans to build one."

Then, if true (and who knows if it is), why do they continue to enrich uranium to +20%?  Would not make sense. If they are enriching to those levels, they are intent on building the Bomb.  If not, they are not.  

So the question is, are they, or are they being "framed?"

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:08 | 2469270 john39
john39's picture

20% has legitimate research and medical uses.  besides, since when do the worlds two biggest terrorist states (israel and the US) get to dictate who gets to develop nuclear weapons or energy.  Frankly the world would be a safer place if Israel had to worry that its neighbors might have a nuke.  Maybe, just maybe, isreal would then abide by international law, respect human rights, and cease and desist from stealing more palestinian land and killing more palestinians.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:23 | 2469282 Popo
Popo's picture

Well, to be fair (while your underlying sentiment may be valid) Iran did sign the NPT and in exchange for which they received nuclear technology. So they *are* bound by contract which they entered into freely, and have benefited from already. (which is why they have to submit to inspections by the IAEA in the first place)

You can make the argument that ere are legitimate uses for 20% enrichment -- but this is about signed agreements.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:24 | 2469302 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

This is all a smokescreen. There is no way that we will attack Iran. It has been the consistent policy of the US government to support fundamentalist Islamic states, and attack secular ones. Look at the last 35 years of history and tell me I'm wrong.

The more interesting question is, why?

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:32 | 2469309 Popo
Popo's picture

Not sure that thesis holds water. Jordan? turkey? Egypt? Pakistan?

And was Libya fundamentalist? not in my book. It may not have been liberal democratic, but it certainly wasn't a theocracy.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:32 | 2469323 Fish Gone Bad
Fish Gone Bad's picture

Iran will soon be the only country that does not need street lights... because it glows in the dark.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:50 | 2469361 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Egypt-- secular state under Mubarak. We helped overthrow him, now it is becoming fundamentalist.

Libya-- secular state under Ghadafy. We helped overthrow him. Now it is turning fundamentalist.

Iraq-- secular state under Hussein. Overthrown, now fundamentalist.

Syria is the next secular state that will be targeted.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 13:01 | 2469376 john39
john39's picture

Uncle gorilla needs enemies to keep the sheeple in line.  the red scare is over.  so now every muslim on earth is out to destroy western "culture" (whatever that means anymore)...  never mind that radical islam was created by the CIA/MI6/Mossad...  and that most muslims consider Jesus one of God's greatest prophets.  they are the enemy.  /sarc off.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 14:10 | 2469744 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

But it is the fundamentalist Islamics that are the threat...and yet we are going after the secular Arabs instead.

WHY?

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 14:22 | 2469778 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

 

 

 

Buckaroo Banzai

" But it is the fundamentalist Islamics that are the threat...and yet we are going after the secular Arabs instead.

WHY? "

 

I assure you, is has NOTHING to do with the attention and political capital paid by BHO to the fundamentalist Islamics or his Muslim upbringing and indoctrination at an early age.

 

Nothing to do with that at all.

 

I assure you.

 

 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 14:57 | 2469858 Think for yourself
Think for yourself's picture

Well first of all the fundamentalists are not the threat, but rather the Emmanuel Goldstein created out of geopolitical maneuvering. Anyways, moving on.

If you know how to ask the right questions you have probably already found the answer, so it sounds like you're asking a rhetorical question.

Still, in Hegelian dialectics, you need to shape your opposites (i.e. radicalise the islamists) in order to control the thesis, antithesis, thus dictating the synthesis that will come out of it. This might be why the "international community" is keeping pressure on Iran, although I doubt that the fact that Iran is already fundamentalist would immunize it from attack.

After all, they put in the Shah to destroy the liberal democracy, and when the population turned against the americans for their interference, the general climate was high-jacked by Khomeini, believed to be a CIA plant, turning the country to an islamist theocracy. If Iran gets too far out of line, they could very well decide to attack it, helping polarize the country further, re-establishing dominion over its resources and making sure that their puppets stay in place.

Have you ever noticed how much Ahmadinejad is demonized but Khomeini not that much? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 15:21 | 2469928 john39
john39's picture

nailed it. 

moreover, the invisible hand conrols the terrorists... they have no fear of radical islam taking over the world.  radical islam is just today's version of emmanel goldstein.  pure fictional threat.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 16:39 | 2470075 One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

The NDAA ruling will be appealed after the elections. There would not have been so much pressure to pass an amdt to take away your right to file for habeas corpus the moment you are in custody and make you wait 90 days. Pair that with the NDAA provision allowing transferring you to a foreign govt - out of US custody - and you never will get that habeas corpus relief because you will have been disappeared.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 18:15 | 2470230 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Yea he nailed it alright!

There are no attacks by state funded allah against America.

They are all imaginary.

Those folks in Iraq, they got funding and arms from allah not from Iran and Syria to attack the US.

Just ask any old local islamic brotherhood.

Aslam Alekem brothers, you not fooling anyone ,anymore not really sure why keep putting forth the effort.

Everyone knows, want to find the most intolerant, oppressive backward ass people on the planet?

Head to muzzieville. If lucky, maybe can find a good stoning to attend.

 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 20:09 | 2470378 Think for yourself
Think for yourself's picture

I didn't say they are imaginary. I said it is an Emmanuel Goldstein crafted out of clever geopolitical maneuvering (I left out psyops, but this should be obvious).

Just in passing, 1984 never reveals whether Goldstein exists or not, although we learn that the Party helped in the elaboration of its book.

Fundamentalist islam is a number one public enemy, culturally speaking, which has been crafted by the west just as much as Osama Ben Laden was as a litteral Goldstein. It is being used as one of the threads weaving the veil of an fake world narrative, it is no more than a scarecrow against which to define oneself in the process of historical dialectics.

What I meant by that is that fundamentalist islam is a fire that has been setup, kindled and feeded by the very institutions that supposedly oppose it. Through wars, black ops and not-so-hidden political intrigues, the "international community" has forced islam to polarize itself and take up the role of an enemy. As somebody mentioned upthread, the West also has a long history of warring against secular democraties in the middle east, while making friends with royal families heading feudal regimes (for whom radical islam is a tool to retain power, as moderate islam does not support royal bloodlines).

The West has kindled that fire, brainwashing the western sheeple with both crude and elaborate psy-ops, implanting the antagonistic feelings (which you harbor) in the collective unconscious of entire generations. The fire was fed, when these prejudices had the opportunity to manifest themselves, in the treatment we administer to muslims. Just think about the way the west behaved in Afghanistan, where killing 50 innocents in the name of targeting a single suspected military target was simply matter of course.

Ok, so in the backstage Iran probably does all it can to defend itself from the invading empire (note: even if it means protecting the integrity of its neighbors through black ops, it is still defensive, not offensive as the west has been). So what? Have you ever asked yourself why? How did Iran get its anti-american stance? Who provided training to its black ops people?  Which agencies are still basically acting as consultants for Iran, or for Pakistan's ISI? Where do the weapons that enter the region come from? Who keeps poking the ants' nest?

By not asking these uncomfortable questions, you are being a good little matrix dweller. Unexamined official positions are used to justify crimes against humanity, wars of aggression against innocent peoples abroad and the spread of a totalitarian state at home, but you stay blind to these atrocities - even worse, you even feel justified and self-righteous.

So get the fuck off your high horse. To be fair, if I want to find the most intolerant, oppressive backward ass people on the planet, I come here and look at your posts. You often voice the most conceited generalizations and opinions I've had the chagrin to hear in months, even though I hang out in some of the cesspools of the internet.

You let yourself be defined by the ideas that the slavemasters planted in your mind. Muslims, be they fundamentalists or not, are living, breathing humans, before anything else. But when you look at them, you only see the ideology that you think they represent, which appears to be antagonistic to yours, and at that point you have forgotten their humanity. Maybe you would be interested to see where your conditionning about islam comes from? They've been messing around in your head for a long time.

Tue, 05/29/2012 - 01:33 | 2470855 fxrxexexdxoxmx
fxrxexexdxoxmx's picture

So the vast majority of Muslims living in Islamic countries are opposed to their governments which demand the prohhition of Bibles and other religous holy books.

These same peoples wish to end Sharia legal frame works?

They do not seek to convert non=believers by threat of death?

yeah nothing at alll to be afraid of. nothing at all

Tue, 05/29/2012 - 08:26 | 2471120 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Looks like you were hitting the paranoia kool-aid pretty hard over the weekend.

Tue, 05/29/2012 - 08:30 | 2471137 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Think for yourself said:

Muslims, be they fundamentalists or not, are living, breathing humans, before anything else. But when you look at them, you only see the ideology that you think they represent, which appears to be antagonistic to yours, and at that point you have forgotten their humanity. Maybe you would be interested to see where your conditionning about islam comes from?

Xkwiseetly Panefool Rectal Itche knows where his conditioning comes from. He's an izzie firster, so his paycheck and conditioning come from the same source.

Wed, 05/30/2012 - 00:12 | 2474179 Nikao7
Nikao7's picture

Think For Yourself,

 

SPOT ON

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 21:28 | 2470536 Element
Element's picture

 

Everyone knows, want to find the most intolerant, oppressive backward ass people on the planet?

 

The US Treasury and FED?

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 21:20 | 2470462 caconhma
caconhma's picture

The USA is racing against the time. I mean against China and a rapid decline of the US$ reserve currency status. As for euro, for all practical purposes, it has so many problems that its future status is very murky.

As of today, using US$ as a reserve currency, the USA maintains a superpower status and endless benefits coming with it. However, China Yuan as a reserve currency, backed by gold, together with many bilateral agreements inside the BRIC club and with Japan will drastically reduce US$ reserve status.

The USA has shown for a quite long time that it has very little respect for the international Law and obligations. Consequently, America does not need any justification to starts a war and to invade Iran. America behaves as an international outlaw. The only reason why America has not done so is the fact that something prevents America to do so.

Presently, America is trying to subdue Iran without using a military force. However, as long as China and Russia are not going alone, it will not work. Consequently, America will have to evaluate possibilities to get involved into an Iranian adventure. There are many unforeseen consequences:

1.   China is not that stupid to figure out that this adventure will have very grave consequences for China vital national interests making China dependent on bandit America for natural resources vital to its survival. It may lead to a direct confrontation with China.

2.   Russia is too weak and disorganized internally to do much (like in a case of Libya).

3.   Iranian’s response to an American aggression is also very unpredictable. It is obvious that the Iranian Ayatollah regime will not physically survive with any kind of surrender. Consequently, Iran might fight back very hard against America, Israel, and America oil vassals in the region.  There is no way America can occupy a 90-million mountain country like Iran without having a strong 5th-collum it doesn’t have.

4.   The historical fact. After the WWII, America lost wars in N. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. There are no guaranties America will be successful in Iran without using nuclear device. But then, it will be a totally new world America might not like to be in.

PS

America oligarchy has been able to remove Dennis Kucinich from the American political life. He was removed from the Congress.

 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 22:16 | 2470624 Jake88
Jake88's picture

WTF?!#%

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 22:25 | 2470635 Jake88
Jake88's picture

The US will most definitely attack Iran. And if anyone is surprised when they do it will be because they weren't paying attention.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:28 | 2469312 Mitzibitzi
Mitzibitzi's picture

Plus the US and, IIRC, UK, France and Russia have all already offered to supply Iran with material enriched to 20% and beyond, as it does indeed have valid non-military uses. Maybe the terms of those offers were simply too limiting for Iran to want to take any of them?

Though, more realistically, developing a small number of simple, easily maintainable fission bombs for deterrent purposes makes sense from the 'don't fuck with us!' perspective. I don't imagine for one minute that they are seriously thinking about building a nuke and actually using it on anyone.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:42 | 2469341 john39
john39's picture

leaving yourself depending on western powers for nuclear fuel sounds a lot like trusting MF Global with your cash...

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 18:23 | 2470251 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

kind of like leaving oneself dependent on cavemen for fuel?

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 22:54 | 2470685 Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

The US of A shot down the foreign enrichment agreement brokered by Turkey, between Brazil and Iran.  This shows that enrichment is not the issue.

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/17/the_turkey_brazil_iran...

Tue, 05/29/2012 - 07:54 | 2471053 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Popo said:

Well, to be fair (while your underlying sentiment may be valid) Iran did sign the NPT and in exchange for which they received nuclear technology. So they *are* bound by contract which they entered into freely, and have benefited from already. (which is why they have to submit to inspections by the IAEA in the first place)

You can make the argument that ere are legitimate uses for 20% enrichment -- but this is about signed agreements.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, because Iran is in compliance with the NPT.

As far as signed agreements go, the UN sanctions against Iran are themselves in violation of the UN charter. Whatever this is about, it is most certainly not about signed agreements.

 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:25 | 2469307 Ancona
Ancona's picture

All of this saber rattling is beyond disconcerting. The Persians have historically done nothing more than defend their own borders. Look back through history and this statement can be easily confirmed. Ahmadinejad's [sic?] rehtoric aside, Iran no more has the resources to sustain an attack against Israel than Libya did. If we start a war in Iran, it will be the last war we ever wage. China and Russia have already sided with Iran, and will most likely back them with arms and equipment in the event of an attack.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:45 | 2469348 john39
john39's picture

almost as if some small third party parasite country has decided that its time to execute its host and move on to another by inducing the host (USA) to start a final war that will destroy the enemy of the parasite, but will also cause the host to implode... 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:21 | 2469454 tamboo
tamboo's picture
Israel rejects call to join anti-nuclear treaty | Reuters

May 29, 2010 ... "As a non-signatory state of the NPT, Israel is not obligated by the decisions of this conference, which has no authority over Israel," the Israeli ...

 

Symington Amendment

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

The Glenn Amendment (Section 670) was later adopted in 1977, and provided the same sanctions against countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology or explode or transfer a nuclear device. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 14:21 | 2469767 j.tennquist
j.tennquist's picture

Ahmadinejad rhetoric aside.   Very funny.  Pity that the rest of your post is not as humorous.

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury"

“Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the
Islamic countries due to their need.”

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,”

"We've never been anti-Semitic."

(just a few Ahmandinejad quotes from thinkexist.com)

This is not offered in defense of Israel's military stance but offered to the Neville Chamberlain mentality of many who insist that all this is just heated rhetoric that has been lost in translation.    So was Mein Kampf until the invasion of the Sudentenland and the Nazi attack on it's great ally Russia.  It was all there in print, had people paid attention.

It's only reasonable to take the man at his word rather than assume he doesn't mean what he says, or is that too rational for you all?


Mon, 05/28/2012 - 15:23 | 2469932 john39
john39's picture

most of those quotes are garbage...  bad translations courtesy of you know who.  No doubt Ahmadinejad wants the israeli regime to collapse, fail, dissappear ect.   As well it should, it is a racist, war mongering, fascist parasite that lives off the back of the American and European taxpayer.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 18:22 | 2470243 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Exactly, and the crowd started chanting down with the USA,

because they didn't understand farsi either.

It's amazing how the simplest, most backward people on earth can be so routinely misunderstood.

 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 21:12 | 2470516 Think for yourself
Think for yourself's picture

Hell, I'm american and I'd chant down with the USA. Lots of friends who'd do the same. Patriotic and all, we care about the american people, but we owe nothing to the USA as it exists right now - the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA corporation, i.e. the district of columbia.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 14:25 | 2469790 Possible Impact
Possible Impact's picture

The Persians have historically done nothing more than defend their own borders. Look back through history and this statement can be easily confirmed.

The Persians have historically done nothing more than redefine their own borders.

(just like all the other ancient kingdoms...)

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/neareast.html

Tue, 05/29/2012 - 04:17 | 2470932 Inthemix96
Inthemix96's picture

There you go ancona

Spoil a perfectly good thread with common fucking sense.

Thank you, whoever you are.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:52 | 2469545 DonutBoy
DonutBoy's picture

No, 20% has no research or medical use.  It has one purpose.  Whether you believe America is a facist pig zionist tool, or the greatest force for the advancement of civilization in the last 50 years is not relevant to the decision that will be made.  An enriched uranium weapon in Iran will threaten the entire middle east's ability to export oil, and for that reason action will be taken.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 13:16 | 2469601 RiverRoad
RiverRoad's picture

"Let us not forget that Mossad,  the CIA and the IAEA agree that Iran does not have a bomb, is not building one, has no plans to build one."

Ah but we need them to be building one now, don't we?  How else could we keep all those troops there?

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 18:05 | 2470207 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

Frankly the world would be a safer place if Israel had to worry that its neighbors might have a nuke.

When Israel says "Iran" they might as well be saying "Russia and China", since any attack against Iran would bring Russia and China in on Iran's side, as both have stated publicly.

So yes, Israel does have to worry about its neighbors-by-alliance having nuclear weapons, boatloads of 'em, more than Israel and America combined.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 18:09 | 2470217 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

When will the Islamic dicatorships respect international law, respect human rights and cease and desist from chasing all the non Islams out of the middle east?

Would that be about the same time that they step up the plate and admit they have been arming and funding attacks against the US for decades?

 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 21:35 | 2470543 Think for yourself
Think for yourself's picture

Right. The relative harmony between middle east jews, christians and muslims of the last few centuries was clearly broken by these dang cave dwellers. The zionists who barged in palestine and proceeded to appropriate the lands by all means necessary, to the point of genocide continuing to this day, clearly have nothing to do with it.

 

Tue, 05/29/2012 - 08:44 | 2471172 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Xkwiseetlee Panefool Rectal Itche asked:

When will the Islamic dicatorships respect international law

When will the US respect international law? When will Israel respect international law?

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 18:20 | 2470240 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Uh yea sure it does and the sanctions against Iraq were working too right?

The food for oil program really wasn't corrupt and lining the French and Russian's pockets.

No listen to the local radical muzzie brotherhood, those sanctions were effective.

BTW I know the answer, the answer is never. 

How do I know? Because radical muzzie will never respected human rights, will never abide  by international law and cease and desist from the obvious ethnic cleansing in the ME.

 

Tue, 05/29/2012 - 08:50 | 2471201 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Xkwiseetlee Panefool Rectal Itche said:

No listen to the local radical muzzie brotherhood, those sanctions were effective.

So you're saying we should listen to the radical izzie brotherhood?

How do I know? Because radical muzzie will never respected human rights, will never abide  by international law and cease and desist from the obvious ethnic cleansing in the ME.

Because radical izzie will never respected [sic] human rights, will never abide by international law and cease and desist from the obvious ethnic cleansing in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 22:29 | 2470649 monad
monad's picture

Zionist propaganda.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 20:59 | 2470500 MrSteve
MrSteve's picture

From what unnamed sources and under what authority-based disclosures / news releases/ press sources is this undocumented assertion about what Mossad, CIA, etc  "know" made?

I call pure bullshit.  Please, provide the sources.

How Tyler et al can support having this agitprop gorp put up as serious issues to consider is evidence of a slow news day or serious brain damage. Which is it?

Taking non-proliferation seriously because apparently no one in charge of contributors status here is.....

MrSteve

Tue, 05/29/2012 - 09:11 | 2471273 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

MrSteve said:

From what unnamed sources and under what authority-based disclosures / news releases/ press sources is this undocumented assertion about what Mossad, CIA, etc  "know" made?

The sources aren't unnamed and the assertion isn't undocumented.

I call pure bullshit.  Please, provide the sources.

http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2012/01/25/us-israel-agree-iran-not...

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 10:55 | 2469239 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I feel so much more free knowing this Bill exists.  What really warms my heart is knowing that someday drones adorned with little American flag decals will be killing children in Iran to further protect my freedom.  

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:09 | 2469272 john39
john39's picture

more likely in the skies above a neighborhood near you...  killing terrorists, aka, anyone who resists the fascist controlled U.S. goverment.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:11 | 2469247 JustObserving
JustObserving's picture

Do we need a reason to go to war?

Some people make a lot of money from the $400 a gallon gasoline and the assorted bargains that the military procures in Afghanistan.  Now that Iraq is winding down, we need new business opportunities.  Praise the lord and pass that ammunition and money.

The Europeans will be delighted to come up with a few hundred billion Euros  for another neocon war.  

Never-ending war for never-ending peace and prosperity.

 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:25 | 2469296 jekyll island
jekyll island's picture

Many people do not realize that the superwealthy elite,  namely the Rothschilds and JP Morgan, made their money by financing war for both sides.  War is an extreme wealth creator for a powerful few and it distracts the sheeple from the incompetence and crony capitalism so rampant in the political mainstream.  Obummer and his handlers have learned from the Bush II debacle, it is better to have established parameters for going to war BEFORE you do it, rather than making up some lame excuse like WMD when you are really interested in oil.  

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 13:23 | 2469619 RiverRoad
RiverRoad's picture

Better check those Euros again.....

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:00 | 2469255 goldnguns
goldnguns's picture

Before making accusations that Mossad, the CIA, and IAEA all agree that no bomb plans are in the works, one needs some experience working in ONE of those organizations before assuming that any public statement - and even those "secret source" statements - are not false flags.  "We" routinely used to (and I assume they still do) drop all kinds of tidbits that the MSM would pounce on as some illicitly disclosed gem that provided the key to unlocking the secret war plan with Panama/Grenada/Lebanon/Bosnia/Iran-Iraq tanker wars/GW1/GW2/OEF/etc.  And we'd sit and read the WaPo/NYT/LAT and just laugh.  People are soooo easy to manipulate - including the HASC and SASC.  In reading all the "ex-spurt" opinions on Iran I'm firmly convinced that the tank is still alive and well and enjoying their "publications".

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:01 | 2469258 Troy Ounce
Troy Ounce's picture
Open Secret: Panetta admits Iran not developing nukes www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdiGahJItOA&feature=player_embedded
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:03 | 2469265 bugs_
bugs_'s picture

Obama (D), and the senate controlled by (D).  Just a little touch up to make the article complete.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:21 | 2469291 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The 13 Senators that voted Nay on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with 86 voting Yea:

Cardin (D-MD)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL) Franken (D-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY) Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:26 | 2469266 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Strange that Ron Paul is the 2nd highest on the list of receipients of defense contractor money.  

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:16 | 2469439 Aziz
Aziz's picture

Not really. First, he's a Presidential candidate to an extent that nobody else in the House was. Second, not all defense contractors are war-mongers. 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:45 | 2469528 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

I think I get it now.  "METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more." Your list includes individuals.   When you look at corporate/PAC money alone, it looks more like this:

1 Howard P. (Buck) Mckeon (R-CA) $130,500 2 Norm Dicks (D-WA) $81,500 3 Kay Granger (R-TX) $77,500 4 Mo Brooks (R-AL) $73,000 5 Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) $72,500 6 Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) $70,600 7 Jerry Lewis (R-CA) $70,500 8 Ken Calvert (R-CA) $68,500 9 Todd Akin (R-MO) $67,500 10 Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA) $67,250 11 Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL) $66,000 11 Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) $66,000 13 Bill Nelson (D-FL) $65,000 14 Hal Rogers (R-KY) $64,000 15 Adam Smith (D-WA) $63,500 16 Mike Rogers (R-MI) $63,000 17 Richard G. Lugar (R-IN) $58,500 18 Scott Brown (R-MA) $57,500 19 Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) $56,000 20 Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) $54,500 21 Joe Courtney (D-CT) $53,500 22 Steven R. Rothman (D-NJ) $52,000 23 Gerry Connolly (D-VA) $51,500 24 Rob Wittman (R-VA) $49,500 25 C. W. Bill Young (R-FL) $48,750
Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:55 | 2469557 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

Correct; if you sort the FEC database by company name, you also get the employees who gave for whatever reason they gave.

 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 15:26 | 2469939 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

.

Unsurprisingly, the biggest Congressional recipient of donations from defence contractors was Howard “Buck” McKeon, the chairman of the armed services committee who also happens to be the sponsor of the NDAA

and then

The fact that Ron Paul is the number two recipient is a sign that not all defence contractors are keen to hit Iran. But some are.

 

can you please make a better argument, this one is broken.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 13:12 | 2469594 Pegasus Muse
Pegasus Muse's picture

Most Ron Paul's donations come from service members and their families (active & retired) --- not from defense contractors.  The troops/families directly impacted by stupid-ass warmongering decisions makers in CON-gress and the White House know we need a patriot in charge, a Jeffersonian libertarian small-government type -- rather than a narcissistic illegal alien who has yet to produce an undoctored birth certificate. 

 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 18:22 | 2470246 Vlad Tepid
Vlad Tepid's picture

The author should get this straight:  This category is not defense contractors.  Those are listed under their own corporate name.  The author would do well to go back and see who contributed there.  This is a list of contributions from citizens employed by the Department of Defense - a totally different thing. 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 14:59 | 2469863 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

Today's group activity is:   dodgeball!

 

*dodge*

 

woot!!  well played!!      

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:06 | 2469268 LeBalance
LeBalance's picture

i get along with my brothers and sisters in every nation and land.

the folks that I find interesting are those who tell me that my brothers and sisters are against me or who educate my brothers and sisters to hate me.

those are the beings we need to focus exclusively on.

those who believe they are better or Chosen.

this notion is THE KEY.

just this notion.

once you introduce this notion, all that IS now flows naturally.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:11 | 2469273 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I don't really see how it matters. 

Seems to me the Preznit can pretty much start any war he wants if he's just a bit clever about it.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:18 | 2469284 Mitzibitzi
Mitzibitzi's picture

'Nuclear weapon capability' really is a ridiculously low standard for a document that isn't designed to allow the US to attack anyone they damn well like, using that as a justification. As I've said before, it's not that hard to do. I reckon any European country, Canada, Mexico, Australia, NZ, Japan, most of South America and any of the more advanced African and Middle / Far East nations could do it, if they really wanted to. Timescales would obviously vary, depending on the industrial and technological capabilities of the countries involved. But, really, the fabrication quality required (granted, for a crude, wasteful weapon that probably doesn't have a 100% chance that it will go bang when it's meant to) is only around the same as a reasonably good optical instrument - and most countries can produce those.

Hell, we in the UK managed to build decent nukes and we're the country that inflicted British Leyland group cars on the world, so it can't be that hard!

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:31 | 2469321 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

Honestly? I have no clue if Iran really is trying to develop offensive nuclear arms capability or not. I've followed both sides and the one most compelling and disturbing to me is that the clowns running that regime are actually so terrified of losing power that they would prefer to do a 'suicide' move rather than experience the wrath of their failed construct. I can almost buy that one. You read about near daily some parent taking out their children then themselves, presumably to avoid loss of face.

If they are a typical regime then allowing them nukes isn't likely a big deal. M.A.D. has been widely mocked, however it makes near perfect game theory sense.

I would appreciate links establishing that Iran is not seeking to weaponize. I would even more appreciate links establishing that Iran in fact has a stable enough set of criminals running the regime as that they can be trusted not to pull an 'end of the world before the end of us' stunt.

For the record: I'm very anti-war and DO NOT buy into the whole 'glorification of military' element of political propaganda.

I'm honestly just asking a few questions.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:25 | 2469469 Terminus C
Terminus C's picture

When you refer to "the clowns running the regime would rather suicide than experience the wrath of their failed construct."  Were you talking about the U.S. or Iran... or both?

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 15:03 | 2469874 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am. . ."

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 13:48 | 2469691 RiverRoad
RiverRoad's picture

The "stable enough set of criminals running the regime" is Russia who would not be the least amused by the nuclear blowback.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:33 | 2469326 Steak
Steak's picture

Two interesting additions to this.  One is that the Senate has yet to act on the measure but can do so whenever they would like.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SE00380:@@@X

Another is how the measure expressly mentions the threat of a Saudi bomb if Iran gets one:

Whereas, on December 6, 2011, Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia stated that if international efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons fail, `we must, as a duty to our country and people, look into all options we are given, including obtaining these weapons ourselves'

But yeah, look to the Senate to see when they'll act.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 11:56 | 2469369 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

The rule of law has turned into a rule by fiat of a congress bought and paid for by corporate money.  The sad fact is, the supreme court is the only check on the laws congress passes. Now, take a look at the supreme court judges and see how well you sleep at night!

As usual, the clowns use socisl issues politics to get the supreme court justices that are the most prone to war, terror, civil right abuses, the military industrial complex and corporate power. Many Americans back socially conservative judges thinking abortion or gays are the importants issues, while these war mongering corporate whores are put on the court.

We are officially doomed!

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:22 | 2469452 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

there are moronic shitheaded asswipes everywhere

dKucinich ain't wunnademDems

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:24 | 2469464 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Make love not war. And what is all this stuff about anyhow. How about an NDAA against banksters and crooked politicians. That's who the military should be protecting the US from. Like Bilderberg. Why don't they go over there this weekend and round the enemy terrorists up while they are at the hotel drawing up their terrorist plans. Literally drawing up plans and getting others to go along with their attack on the US and Europe. Like what the f is up. NDAA that f'n place.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 12:56 | 2469559 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

NDAA: The gift that keeps on giving.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 13:10 | 2469583 Element
Element's picture

"... we're gonna need a bigger bogie-man."

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 13:14 | 2469597 luckylogger
luckylogger's picture

What makes everybody so sure that this will turn into a huge drawn out war...... Remember how Israel took care of Iraq's and Syria's nuclear ambitions....

Sure, it will take more firepower but it is very possible threat nothing will ever be said or even acknowledged, for all we know their stuff is already destroyed or does not even exist. We simpletons simply have no idea what is or will happen.... What we do know is if they fuk up and it gets out of control , then we will know about it. If everything goes smooth then the dudes in Iran keep bantering about about their great nuclear program that simply does not even exist...??? Ever think about it like that?

There is one thing we do have and that is "private" satellite providers to get images from...............

There was a time when Patton fooled the German military muscle with a bunch of blow up dolls that looked like tanks.................

We just don't fuking know and will not until after the fact.   One thing to watch is Brent crude..... but ass we all know that can be easily manipulated too. trade carefully ... lots of opportunity out there but what an incredible amount of disinformation and minefields to negotiate.

My 2c.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 13:36 | 2469651 TrainWreck1
TrainWreck1's picture

War with Iran is an absolute last resort.

Only necessary under the direst of circumstances, like a plunging stock market or bad political numbers.

 

 

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 23:02 | 2470691 monad
monad's picture

Or if it looks like Ron Paul is going to win. Then the tribe of the insane crooks will do something drastic. Again.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 14:17 | 2469764 dolph9
dolph9's picture

The United States only cares about two things:  oil and Israel.

It doesn't give a fuck about "terrorism" or protecting people or democracy or freedom or Arabs or Muslims or anything.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 23:08 | 2470700 monad
monad's picture

Israel can handle itself fine. I only care about what my money is doing, and whose trying to steal it.

Tue, 05/29/2012 - 18:25 | 2473612 Alpha Monkey
Alpha Monkey's picture

And the dollar...

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 14:29 | 2469796 Sokhmate
Sokhmate's picture

"with the potential of massive negative side-effects"

should read "with the potential of massive negative effects"

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 14:40 | 2469830 jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

Yeah.  Worth a mention again though since most missed it the first time.  Most people don't realize this is the same sort of vague reading that like Iraq no one realizes they voted for war.  As in past tense.  

Sadly Kucinich is one of those guys where sometimes he pussies out, but far and away stands on the right side through the end, which is in January for him.  Gotta love being redistricted out.  Of all the assholes in Ohio who don't deserve to be there, like Boehner, whose district gets the axe? Why of course the only guy actually representing Ohio.

I do agree with the notion that we tend to attack secular and replace with fundamentalism, because our point is to create chaos, control that chaos, and unleash it upon other nations to create more, and economic advantages.  Like what we did AND still do with Al-CIAda.  Who do you think we send to Libya, Syria, etc?

We support the opium, hell we help grow and protect it.  Don't forget our taxpayer planes flying it.  Our banksters and the oligarchy just love opium and drugs in general.  HSBC anyone?

Though I do think that the one of the main reasons they do this is that the ultimate goal is to topple Iran.  Break with the dollar.  Oil. 1979.  Get at Russia.   Hell I'm probably forgetting some, and surely don't know all the reasons to begin with.  The oligarchs love to destabilize, and destabilizing Iran would allow them to continue their push for destabilization from Africa through SE Asia.  One giant swath of shit.

The biggest problem overlooked by these insane fools is that to launch war with Iran, the odds are a nuclear WWIII is set off.  At least regionally, and regional ones, easily escalate to worldwide ones.  There is no need to attack Iran.  But the oligarch thinks so.  Like the fools they are.

People also forget that one of the 'driving' factors to 'hurry' is that unlike at Iraq, Iran is building these things far underground.  Think Stargate SG-1 type facilities under Cheyenne mountain. Thus it leads to 'credibility to the idiots' that there is a clock where we can hit them that we have to beat...to stop a nuclear program where no one actually says it's a weaponized program. 

Also of note is how many of our wars and treaties involve nations that surround Iran.  Besides while things in the past can tend to portend the future direction, it isn't always the case.  While the plan has always been chaos.  The crown jewel of chaos they can create has always been Iran.

This act should be renamed National Dickhead Authorization Act.  All it allows for is more dicking around.  With us.  With Iranians.  Etc.

Glass-Steagall

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 15:32 | 2469958 Money Squid
Money Squid's picture

"H. Res. 568 draws the “redline” for military action at Iran achieving a nuclear weapons “capability,”

All this fuss about nuclear weapons capability or enriching to weapons grade is total bullshit. It has been demonstrated that reactor-grade uranium is all that is needed for a nuclear weapon. It may not be as efficient as one powered by weapons-grade uranium, but it works. Therefore, any country with reactor grade uranium can develop gun-type device anytime it wants. It is just politcal bullshitting to argue Iran can not be allowed to acheive weapons-grade purity

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 16:29 | 2470059 Centurion9.41
Centurion9.41's picture

DK is just another @ssbag politician playing on the ignorance of libs/progressives.

ALL the military readiness and training etc. mentioned are SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] for EVERY military region in the world.  Or would it be better if it read "let's have no sh1t in the region and be incapable of having any credibility to any military based influence"

Lib/progressive 99%ers need to stop being the Sheeple & Frogs of the MSM and Democratic machine.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 18:03 | 2470208 besnook
besnook's picture

and colin powell's comment is........

your simple minded lib/con, left/right, dem/repub nonsense is the problem. the bottom half of the class rules the world. that includes you.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 19:13 | 2470305 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You sure got THAT all wrong.

Add the words in that list to your email signature.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 19:24 | 2470338 Coldfire
Coldfire's picture

All of this makes sense when one pictures these military appropriations acts as the military-industrial-security complex writing cheques to itself.

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 19:32 | 2470346 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

The U.S. would not be wise to put Iran's 250mph underwater missiles to the test...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 22:05 | 2470604 bill1102inf
bill1102inf's picture

Trolololololololololol. lol

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 22:04 | 2470598 bill1102inf
bill1102inf's picture

DISGUSTING ulta-lib hippies!!! "The notion of a “nuclear weapons capability” seems like a dangerously low standard. Let us not forget that Mossad, the CIA and the IAEA agree  that Iran does not have a bomb, is not building one, has no plans to build one."

 

Pure BULLS**T plain and simple.  We continue to find that Iran has 'siteS' which are enriching Uranium FAR PASSED what is reactor grade.  What this means, you SLOW, Retarded, Liberal, Hippy, Pansy, Vaginaesque folks is this "THEY MOST CERTAINLY WIHTOUT A DOUBT MAKING BOMB(S)" you fn imbeciles.

 

Im certain when a nuclear cloud appears over an American city, or an allied city, some of you douche-nozzles will claim 'its bushes fault' and you other enema-nozzle-sucking-fools will say 'we didn't know', we couldnt have seen it coming.

F U and the magical skittle sh***ting unicorn your fag ass flew in on.

 

Tue, 05/29/2012 - 00:09 | 2470789 Money Squid
Money Squid's picture

Holly shit, its Dick Cheney! How you are you....DICK. Been out back shooting your friends in the face again? After all that draft dodging and cowardly partiot talk I know you like to get out huntin' with the boys, shoot'n up some pheasant that is tied down so it can't fly away..just in case you miss a few dozen times. Does it fell goooood to walk up the restrained bird and pump a few dozen rounds in it?

Mon, 05/28/2012 - 22:52 | 2470682 monad
monad's picture

Its an election season. The RNC & DNC have nothing to brag about. This is another scarecrow to get people to focus outward instead of on the major corruption and serious issues they all continue to fail to address.

The economy will be front & center.

Zionist histrionics will get you nowhere.

Tue, 05/29/2012 - 00:03 | 2470782 Steyr
Steyr's picture

Kucinich is a kook

Tue, 05/29/2012 - 00:47 | 2470826 ciao
ciao's picture

As elaborated by others 20% is the research reactor-medicine-isotope threshhold.  The Argentinians and South Africans are also there and have been for a long time.  

The jump from 20% to +90% level is being positively reinforced in media by the wetsern elite as achievable in an eyeblink.  This is a lie.   South African proliferation help to Israel was nothing compared to that from the US.  Strategically the isolated white South Africa regime had more motivation to possess nukes than Iran, and more resources, but didn't get there.  Iran's strategic advantage is in its ability to build and project conventional forces in the region.  Its ability to deter with nukes would never be achieved.

The west finds itself unable to contemplate the effect of a confrontation with a moral state because of a deficit of aspiration brought about by the assassination of new world sensibility by Teddy Roosevelt and the progressivist/manifest destiny crowd.  The latent power and promise of a Persian mohommedan democracy was however well recognised by an American of the same non interventionist mould remants of which survived in Vandenberg, Mellon and Hoover.  That American was William Morgan Shuster and his book The Strangling of Persia was recently called for reprint by the very same East coast US liberal fascist elite that is trying to take down the Persian Mohomeddan democracy today.

A note to the editors, thank you for the turn of thought that brings forward this guest post.

ps: with the bond vultures hard at work with their State Department mates on the making extraterritorial US law, and the Argy's already having caught the CIA landing scrubbed small arms and the usual out of time drugs on a US government freighter, take note that the threats eminating from "rogue" (independent) regime's running research reactors still has some way to run. Expect something soon from the usual academic narrative factories and the CFR.

Tue, 05/29/2012 - 01:42 | 2470864 monad
monad's picture

If Iran wants a nuclear weapon they can just ask Israel for one. Nobody in the world wants them to have a nuclear weapon more than Israel, except maybe the American MIC, who can also supply a quality one. This is definitely the quickest and cheapest way to accomplish the objective and please all the chickenhawks in the process. Win-win.

What happens next is so glaringly obvious that the absurdity of the whole proposition is laid bare. If Iran even did act as if they want a nuclear weapon (not), they are just fucking with TPTB for money and influence. Semper idem. Its called lobbying, or sometimes nuclear blackmail. Its a charade to hustle chumps for change. Just like all the always needy beggar banks.

Israel has more Phds per capita than the USA. South Korea has more Phds than Israel. The aid is flowing in the wrong direction...

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!