Kucinich: NDAA Authorizes War Against Iran

[flying ^]

<ahem>

Originally Posted by flying ^

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The U.S. House of Representatives explicitly stated that tough measures it recommended for Iran in a major defense bill did not authorize war.

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran," said an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill that directs defense spending, passed in the House on Friday.

The act includes substantive references to Iran, among them a "declaration of policy" that the United States shall "take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon."

It also authorizes combat assessments of Iran's forces and sufficient forces in the Persian Gulf to face Iran.

A number of dovish groups, including several within the pro-Israel community, have been lobbying lawmakers to include explicit denials in various legislation that such proposals authorize war.

The amendment counting out a war authorization was initiated by Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Walter Jones. (R-N.C.).

Americans for Peace Now and J Street praised the amendment's inclusion.

"Having urged Congress since the inception of these Iran-related motions to clarify that they are not aimed at authorizing the use of force against Iran, we welcome the adoption of this amendment, as well as other important verbal statements," Ori Nir, APN's spokesman, told JTA.

Dylan Williams, J Street’s director of government affairs, said the amendment "slams the brakes on those in Congress who would drive the United States toward a third war in the Middle East."

</ahem>

[Haak]

I'm fully that war is very unlikely at this point in time. I just made a small point about Iran possibly being the belligerent and suddenly the whole thing spiralled into a huge debate about every single possible factor relating to that one point.

[SaintessHeart]

Actually the people calling for war are just waiting for oil futures to spike so they can sell off their contracts.

Nothing new here, move along.

[Ithekro]

Does make me worry about USS Enterprise (CVN-65). She is on her last tour and it is in the Persian Gulf. She is to be retired in December. While a lot of people want to see her preserved (lot of firsts on that ship, and also to save her from the fate of her predicessor (CV-6) that was probably even more famous) it looks like it will be too expensive to do anything with her once they cut out all the reactors and other associated nuclear systems (a cleanup of the area after it has been in use since 1961), that they will likely scrap her after they are finished in 2015.

If life was a TV show, she's be throwing up a bunch of death flags.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

If life was a TV show, she's be throwing up a bunch of death flags.

'' If we have to lose one carrier, as well lose this one'' kind of reflection ?

[Ithekro]

Also it would be "cheaper" to have her sunk in enemy action than to to pull her reactors and scrap her. Very "heroic noble sacrifice" sort of way. Legendary vessel sunk on its last mission sort of thing.

[Haak]

More like Retirony.

[Ithekro]

Enterprise has been in many wars. Not all of them since 1961, but most (she missed Desert Storm because she was being refueled and refitted at the time). She has seen her share of conflict. Though rarely ever under direct threat of attack.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Though rarely ever under direct threat of attack.

Isn't the point of a carrier, to be abble to strike a target while being beyong the reach of the enemy's weapon ?

[Ithekro]

Traditional yes. Though her predecessor saw a lot of direct action under the eyes of Japanese Naval Aviation attacks against US Naval Vessels. The world is such that there are few that can get close enough to attack an American Carrier directly. And still fewer that have the ability to fire from beyond defensive ranges with missiles.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Also it would be "cheaper" to have her sunk in enemy action than to to pull her reactors and scrap her. Very "heroic noble sacrifice" sort of way. Legendary vessel sunk on its last mission sort of thing.

The hull could have been reconverted to become a spacebound vehicle that can be launched by a mass-accelerator. And that name retention could easily befit it.

[Ithekro]

If you can figure out how to launch something the is roughly 93,000 tons and over 340 meters long, Okay. (though she will be less weight once all her reactors and surrounding areas are removed since they say there will be practically nothing below the flight deck that is viable after they remove all that stuff.)

And how to make her airtight and vaccum viable. Because Space Carrier Enterprise (or Starship) would be fine too.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Haak

Yes of course, that is totally the only logical reason.

The soldiers were in armoured Humvees crossing between Zar'it and Shtula.

Before the attack, Hezbollah had sent diversionary attacks to military posts in border villages, blatantly suggesting that it was a planned attack. Hezbollah were the only belligerents here.

I rather be ignorant as you say, but "thanks" to the profit USA gunmakers are making selling assault weapons to the drug dealing mafia I can tell you this out of personal experience, when the army is going into an area where they expect to clash with well equipped enemies (a bunch of kids with stick and stones is not what I mean) they go in two or three non-armored vehicles with 4-6 soldiers in the back (plus the driver and anyone besides him). If they sent two soldiers in one vehicle to a zone where they knew they would find hezbollah guerrillas, let me tell you they were sent there to be killed and/or captured to have an excuse to attack lebanon, no if, ands or buts.

There's no backtracking. Gaza hasn't been reoccupied and the PNA and the police haven't been disbanded. It's simply been stalled. To conclude that they are directly disobeying UN resolutions is a stretch based on purely subjective interpretation.

Your logic makes no sense, if stalling is not disobeying Nazi germany could simply had waved their right to stall the retirement from occupied europe before wwII.

That's a very poor excuse to call for the destruction of Israel...

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

If you means the "Israel must be wiped off the map" comment. Then that one was (conveniently) mistranslated

The actual comment was something closer to "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time" or simply "end that regime" without notion of using military intervention or military threat toward the state / people of Israel

...

I'm not denying Israel should get no blame whatsoever but to claim that Israel are somehow equivalently at fault is just BS. At the end of the day, Iran is one being belligerent towards Israel.

At the end of the day it is irrelevant who started it, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Originally Posted by flying ^

It also authorizes combat assessments of Iran's forces and sufficient forces in the Persian Gulf to face Iran.

Let me see, an worldwide economic crisis, an electorate weary from the war, a democrat president, a group of naval vessels placed within range from the enemy without the proper defensive measures, hmmm, where I have heard that before?

Originally Posted by Aegir

I don't know how much people around here has been updated of the current politics in israel but, here goes : http://www.juancole.com/2012/05/new-...an-attack.html

They are merely stalliing for time, hoping the next president USA is a republican and/or the next iranian president is equally or more hawkish than the present one, that is if my prior prediction does not become a reality.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

I rather be ignorant as you say, but "thanks" to the profit USA gunmakers are making selling assault weapons to the drug dealing mafia I can tell you this out of personal experience, when the army is going into an area where they expect to clash with well equipped enemies (a bunch of kids with stick and stones is not what I mean) they go in two or three non-armored vehicles with 4-6 soldiers in the back (plus the driver and anyone besides him). If they sent two soldiers in one vehicle to a zone where they knew they would find hezbollah guerrillas, let me tell you they were sent there to be killed and/or captured to have an excuse to attack lebanon, no if, ands or buts.

Good thing that's not what happened then. XP

Eight soldiers were patrolling the border (I'd imagine border patrols are pretty common and non-controversial) in two armoured Humvees. Besides the two that were captured, three were killed and three were injured.

Your logic makes no sense, if stalling is not disobeying Nazi germany could simply had waved their right to stall the retirement from occupied europe before wwII.

And Godwin's Law rears it's ugly head once more...

Except in that case they would be doing to blatantly whilst Netanyahu is just being an ambiguous dickhead. And whilst the occupation has some massive problems, comparing it to the Nazi regime is a bit disingenuous.

...

I was actually talking about Hezbollah...

At the end of the day it is irrelevant who started it, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." -- Mahatma Gandhi.

Then why were you arguing that Israel were the belligerents and trying to justify Iran's belligerence?

And just so you know, Israel haven't actually attacked Iran and are very unlikely to atm.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Haak

Good thing that's not what happened then. XP

Eight soldiers were patrolling the border (I'd imagine border patrols are pretty common and non-controversial) in two armoured Humvees. Besides the two that were captured, three were killed and three were injured.

Would you mind sharing the link to the full story?

Except in that case they would be doing to blatantly whilst Netanyahu is just being an ambiguous dickhead. And whilst the occupation has some massive problems, comparing it to the Nazi regime is a bit disingenuous.

It would be the same to compare it to the occupation of soviet russia of the three baltic states, I used the example because everbody that understands english will probably remember that the league of nations also told nazi germany to leave the occupied territories (and they replied a they would not). I could also mention the ocupation of Japan of a wide portion of Asia before the end of ww2. The point is that retreating a few years after the invasion is not problematic, it becomes a mess when you stall for several decades and yet still saying you have respected an u.n. resolution telling you to get out is simply propaganda.

I was actually talking about Hezbollah...

As I have already said, any resitance force will say they will destroy the invader, the smaller the dog the uglier its bark is.

Then why were you arguing that Israel were the belligerents and trying to justify Iran's belligerence?

Because is Israel beligerance that started it all, look at the previous examples, germany and japan has a pacific coexistence with his neighbors because they retreated (by military force, I know). Had Istael done the same a few years after the six day war they might be the japan of the middle east (you see chinese, koreans and other asiatics visiting japan and none has the slightest intention of bombing themselves as punishment for the invasion). Im such a situation Iran would have made attempts to recruit people but they woudn't have the same luck, who wants to fight an old enemy over forgotten grivances? That is that I insist that it is only because of israel present beligrance in the middle east that iran has proxies that fight against israel, otherwise they would be alone and isolated like north korea.

And just so you know, Israel haven't actually attacked Iran and are very unlikely to atm.

The stuxnet bot attack has been traced to Israel, in the 21th century that would be considered an attack that required retribution by the USA, Russia or China.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Haak

And just so you know, Israel haven't actually attacked Iran and are very unlikely to atm.

Other than the stuxnet bot attack, the bombing and assassination of Iran scientist is... well... have to be either US or Israel doing. I means some of these guys were basically stepping out of their university and get blown to pieces.

Small enough to not causing military reaction, but specific enough for a certain purpose/ target. Don't think it was China or Russia trying to set up a WW3 or so here

Edit: btw i think we really are off topic now. Should get back on the US role and legitimacy of military actions toward Iran

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Would you mind sharing the link to the full story?

It appears to be called the Zar'it-Shtula incident

[Haak]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Would you mind sharing the link to the full story?

Originally Posted by Ithekro

It appears to be called the Zar'it-Shtula incident

It would be the same to compare it to the occupation of soviet russia of the three baltic states, I used the example because everbody that understands english will probably remember that the league of nations also told nazi germany to leave the occupied territories (and they replied a they would not). I could also mention the ocupation of Japan of a wide portion of Asia before the end of ww2. The point is that retreating a few years after the invasion is not problematic, it becomes a mess when you stall for several decades and yet still saying you have respected an u.n. resolution telling you to get out is simply propaganda.

It may have been a whole decade but it hasn't been several. And the way Netanyahu has gone about it seems clear to me that he's just being a stubborn arsehole, whereas Nazi Germany stalling for time would indicate that they plan to stay forever.

As I have already said, any resitance force will say they will destroy the invader, the smaller the dog the uglier its bark is.

Except that Israel retreated and Hezbollah were still at it. And no, a bunch of farms that Israel only occupied due to territorial ambiguities is not a good enough reason.

Because is Israel beligerance that started it all, look at the previous examples, germany and japan has a pacific coexistence with his neighbors because they retreated (by military force, I know). Had Istael done the same a few years after the six day war they might be the japan of the middle east (you see chinese, koreans and other asiatics visiting japan and none has the slightest intention of bombing themselves as punishment for the invasion). Im such a situation Iran would have made attempts to recruit people but they woudn't have the same luck, who wants to fight an old enemy over forgotten grivances? That is that I insist that it is only because of israel present beligrance in the middle east that iran has proxies that fight against israel, otherwise they would be alone and isolated like north korea.

Whilst it is bad that Israel took further Palestinian territories through war, bear in mind that the only reason Israel did it in the first place was because they were attacked first. So the idea that they would've just been left alone had they retreated is just naive. Israel retreated from Sinai and that didn't solve everything. And Israel was never even Iran's old enemy. They weren't enemies at all until in the 1979 revolution.

But yeah I get what you're saying. When Israel is belligerent, then Israel is at fault. But when someone else is belligerent, it suddenly doesn't matter who started it...

The stuxnet bot attack has been traced to Israel, in the 21th century that would be considered an attack that required retribution by the USA, Russia or China.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Other than the stuxnet bot attack, the bombing and assassination of Iran scientist is... well... have to be either US or Israel doing. I means some of these guys were basically stepping out of their university and get blown to pieces.

Small enough to not causing military reaction, but specific enough for a certain purpose/ target. Don't think it was China or Russia trying to set up a WW3 or so here

Oh, I forgot about the assassinations. Yeah those are pretty bad...

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Haak

It may have been a whole decade but it hasn't been several. And the way Netanyahu has gone about it seems clear to me that he's just being a stubborn arsehole, whereas Nazi Germany stalling for time would indicate that they plan to stay forever.

Whoa, whoa, stop, resolution 242 was approved on the 22 of november of 1967.

Except that Israel retreated and Hezbollah were still at it. And no, a bunch of farms that Israel only occupied due to territorial ambiguities is not a good enough reason.

I once belonged to a commodore 64 user group. Guess how many of those can you find nowadays? Hezbollah like any organization attempts to prevent disolution and the reason they have not is not because of the sheeba farms, it is because the average Lebanese can see a clear and present danger that with a shift on Israel's politics they might invade again.

Whilst it is bad that Israel took further Palestinian territories through war, bear in mind that the only reason Israel did it in the first place was because they were attacked first. So the idea that they would've just been left alone had they retreated is just naive. Israel retreated from Sinai and that didn't solve everything. And Israel was never even Iran's old enemy. They weren't enemies at all until in the 1979 revolution.

But yeah I get what you're saying. When Israel is belligerent, then Israel is at fault. But when someone else is belligerent, it suddenly doesn't matter who started it...

My point is not about who attacked whom first, I repeat myself, it is about who has the power to stop it and in this case it is Israel. There can be no good will unless ALL of the territories are returned (returning mount sinai was more like a tactical retreat). It has been already said that Iran needed an enemy to distract the arab states from their own beligerancy and Israel fills the part just perfect, Israel is playing right into the Ayattollas hands by continuing to opress their neighbors.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Edit: btw i think we really are off topic now. Should get back on the US role and legitimacy of military actions toward Iran

Sadly legitimacy has nothing to do with this whole affair. This is a simple economical affair. In our lifetimes the world production of oil will be surpassed by world demand. Some say this has already started, but there is some debate about that. Thing is the USA is fixated on getting its oil fix, that is why they invaded Iraq and that is will try to invade Iran and they will do it with or without a UN resolution, the real question is how involved will be Russia to prevent a succesfull invasion.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Whoa, whoa, stop, resolution 242 was approved on the 22 of november of 1967.

But you said they only started backtracking after Ehud Barak left office, which was approximately a decade ago.

I once belonged to a commodore 64 user group. Guess how many of those can you find nowadays? Hezbollah like any organization attempts to prevent disolution and the reason they have not is not because of the sheeba farms, it is because the average Lebanese can see a clear and present danger that with a shift on Israel's politics they might invade again.

Considering most Lebanese didn't even know the Shebaa farms existed until Hezbollah kept brining it up, I figured it was mostly due to propaganda...

My point is not about who attacked whom first, I repeat myself, it is about who has the power to stop it and in this case it is Israel. There can be no good will unless ALL of the territories are returned (returning mount sinai was more like a tactical retreat). It has been already said that Iran needed an enemy to distract the arab states from their own beligerancy and Israel fills the part just perfect, Israel is playing right into the Ayattollas hands by continuing to opress their neighbors.

"Because is Israel beligerance that started it all" is what you said, so yes that was your point. And Iran is just as much capable as Israel is.