Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: War With Iran in 2013? Congress Prepares for War - HR 4310

Posted 2 years ago on May 18, 2012, 1:51 a.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Dennis Kucinich speaks in Congress about HR 4310

"Section 1221 makes military action against Iran a US policy."

"(b) Declaration of Policy- It shall be the policy of the United States to 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."

"Section 1222 directs our armed forces to prepare for war."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZnTnkBIdk0&feature=relmfu

HR 4310 full: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.4310.rH:

President Obama stated on January 24, 2012, `Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.'. Romney's website has a near identical quote about the military being an option to stop Iraq's WMD program... I mean Iran's WMD program.

Do you understand what's happening here?

"Iran is the prize in the center." - Dick Cheney portrayed in the movie W by Oliver Stone


Section 1222

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense shall prepare a plan to augment the presence of the United States Fifth Fleet in the Middle East and to conduct military deployments, exercises, or other visible, concrete military readiness activities to underscore the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b).

(2) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED- The plan required under paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum, steps necessary for the Armed Forces to support the policy of the United States described in section 1221(b), including--

(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;

(C) discussing the viability of deploying at least two United States aircraft carriers, an additional large deck amphibious ship, and a Mine Countermeasures Squadron in the region on a continual basis, in support of the actions described in subparagraph (B); and

(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.

54 Comments

54 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Pretty standard.

Anyone have any thoughts on my idea to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes and from starting another war of aggression?

USE DIPLOMACY

The government claims that one country getting nukes in that region would lead to a nuclear arms race in the region.

If we truly want Iran to not seek a nuclear weapon... let's talk with and convince our ally, Israel, to disarm their nuclear capabilities. It's the only country in the region with a nuke and is also an "enemy" of Iran. Doing so would build our image in Iran and also prevent Iran from wanting a nuke. Diplomacy requires a little give and take. It's the best option for peace, in my opinion.

And with this solution, Israel would not have to worry about getting attacked since they no longer have a nuke, because we are their ally and would have their backs.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 2 years ago

why americans force other nations to fight against Iran nuclear program? Seems like Israel doesnt have nuclear weapons to counterbalance?!!. Or seems lie that everybody here have relatives in Israel. why we should care about Muslims scientific developments overseas? Muslims brothers are very pleasureful people. The only evil is who had contacted with CIA and FBI. This is like mid east malware virus which had national headspring. Al-Jazeera english spreading BS. Al-Qaeda and on and on and on. Your are not a paid bot, so you will understand my extensions and correlations as well as my broken english. http://occupywallst.org/forum/confession-from-an-ex-paid-shill/ P.S. In order to knock down Iran nuclear facilities and overthrow Iranian government and obtain "3day war" plan US need to get rid of Syria. Syria is gateway to Iran, and Iran supporter. For instance, keep it everything in mind and try to build bigger picture

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

"As Abraham Maslow said in 1966, 'I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument

[-] 1 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 2 years ago

It is treason. Why not let the Russians run your country? Maybe they do a better job. Remember:

  • the Lavon Affair.
  • The attack on the USS Liberty.
  • Jonathan Pollard.
  • Lawrence Franklin.
  • possible Israeli advance notice of the attack killing 241 Marines in Beirut in October 1983.
  • the five dancing Israelis on September 11, 2001.
[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

UN Chief Says Iran Deal Near on Inspecting Key Atomic Site

Tuesday, 22 May 2012 14:08 By Alan Cowell, Jodi Rudoren and Thomas Erdbrink, The New York Times News Service | Report

Paris - On the eve of international talks in Baghdad over Iran's disputed nuclear program, the leader of the United Nations nuclear monitoring arm announced what appeared to be a significant concession from Tehran, saying that, despite unspecified differences, he expected a deal "quite soon" on arrangements for an investigation into potential military applications of the program.

The comments by Yukiya Amano, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, came after his first visit to Iran since his appointment in 2009. Iran's invitation to Mr. Amano, announced unexpectedly on Friday, and the apparent shift by Tehran he announced on Tuesday, offered significant signals of Iranian flexibility.

The flurry of diplomacy reinforced the shift of focus to talks from the possibility of military action by Israel, but mixed messages from Iran — including sharp statements from political figures and a planned Wednesday satellite launch using a large missile — kept uncertainty high.

The I.A.E.A. and world powers are involved in separate talks with Iran: the nuclear agency is seeking access to Iran's Parchin military site, which the nuclear agency suspects has been used for secret tests for potential triggering mechanisms for nuclear weapons, while the Baghdad talks are to focus on limiting Iran's enrichment of uranium. For its part, Tehran is seeking reciprocal concessions like an easing of broad economic sanctions — including an embargo on oil deals starting July 1 and broad banking restrictions — at the Baghdad talks. In Iran's Parliament on Tuesday, the speaker, Ali Larijani, urged the global powers "to change their behavior and stop the shell game they have played on Iran," according to state-controlled Press TV. He also said it would be "improper" for the powers to adopt a cooperative stance during the Baghdad talks while imposing ever tighter sanctions.

Mr. Amano's report of progress, however, elicited a skeptical response from Israel and the United States. Israel considers Iran a threat to its existence and has threatened to bomb Iran's nuclear installations.

Ehud Barak, Israel's defense minister and a key architect of its hard-line policy on the Iranian nuclear program, said that Iran seemed to be trying to "create the impression of progress" to "remove some of the pressure" before the Baghdad talks and to "put off the intensification of sanctions."

"Israel believes that Iran should be set a clear bar, so that there is no window or crack" through which the Iranians could advance "their military nuclear program," Mr. Barak said during a meeting at the ministry of defense.

He reiterated Israel's position that Iran should not be allowed to enrich uranium at all and that all enriched uranium should be removed from the country, though he appeared to recognize the talks would not hold such a firm line. "Even if the Iranians are allowed to hold a symbolic amount — a few hundred kilograms of 3.5 percent enriched uranium — it needs to be under tight supervision," Mr. Barak said. But he also appeared to warn against compromise of any kind. "It is forbidden to make concessions to Iran," he said. "The requirements of the world powers must be clear and unequivocal."

Robert A. Wood, the chief American delegate to the nuclear agency in Vienna, said that while Mr. Amano's efforts were appreciated, the Obama administration remained "concerned by the urgent obligation for Iran to take concrete steps to cooperate fully with the verification efforts of the I.A.E.A., based on I.A.E.A. verification practices."

"We urge Iran to take this opportunity to resolve all outstanding concerns about the nature of its nuclear program," Mr. Wood said in a statement. "Full and transparent cooperation with the I.A.E.A. is the first logical step."

Mr. Amano spoke of the Iranian willingness to allow new access on his return to the nuclear agency's headquarters in Vienna on Tuesday. Speaking to reporters, he characterized the progress as an "important development" on the agency's push to reach what it calls a "structured agreement" to determine how its inspectors would conduct an investigation into possible military applications of the Iranian program.

"The decision was made to conclude and sign the agreement," Mr. Amano said, offering a vague timetable of "quite soon." Asked about the Parchin site, Mr. Amano said: "I have raised this issue of access to Parchin, and this issue will be addressed as a point of the implementation of the structured approach document."

"There remain some differences," he said, according to a transcript of his remarks released by I.A.E.A. officials, referring to his discussions with Saeed Jalili, Iran's top nuclear negotiator. But Mr. Jalili told him that existing differences "will not be the obstacle to reaching agreement," Mr. Amano said.

Mr. Jalili is scheduled to fly to Baghdad for the talks on Wednesday with Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. There, negotiators will try to agree on the framework of the beginning of a compromise in which Iran would stop enriching uranium to 20 percent purity — a level considered a short technical step away from weapons grade. In exchange, world powers would allow the Islamic republic to produce its own fuel at a much lower rate of purity not usable for nuclear weapons.

Israel's skepticism of Iran's intentions mirror suspicions within the Tehran elite about outsiders' motives.

Hossein Shariatmadari, an influential adviser to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, contended in remarks published Sunday that the purpose of Mr. Amano's sudden trip had been to frustrate Iran's negotiators by canceling a strategic meeting that was to have taken place in Vienna on Monday.

Those negotiators had been scheduled to receive long-awaited documents from the agency suggesting that the country had tested nuclear triggers in a blast chamber at Parchin. Iranian officials say they need the documents to prepare for the meeting on Wednesday with the world powers.

But other Iranian officials said Mr. Amano's visit was commendable.

"Visiting Tehran, for the first time, helps Mr. Amano to get a realistic impression of our nuclear activities," said Hamid Reza Taraghi, a political analyst close to Iran's highest leaders. "We need to continue this positive atmosphere in Baghdad."

On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu went out of his way on Monday to restate his hawkish position.

"The objectives of Iran are clear: It wants to destroy Israel and is developing nuclear weapons to realize that goal," Mr. Netanyahu said. The big powers "need to put before Iran clear and unequivocal demands: Iran must end all enrichment of nuclear material, Iran must remove from its territory all material that has been enriched up until now, and Iran must dismantle the underground nuclear facility in Qum."

Mr. Netanyahu's remarks came on a day that Haaretz, the left-leaning Israeli daily newspaper, published a front-page article suggesting that his administration "may be more flexible about Iranian low-level uranium enrichment than it is currently willing to let on." The article referred to a written statement by Mr. Barak, saying that enrichment up to 3.5 percent could be acceptable, and said Mr. Barak had shared this view with American officials.

A senior official with Netanyahu's administration denied the Haaretz report. Mr. Netanyahu himself said Israel's position "hasn't changed, and it won't change."

Earlier Monday, an Israeli vice prime minister, Moshe Yaalon, said that if the international community allowed Iran to maintain a civilian nuclear program, Iran would have successfully sacrificed "a pawn in a chess game in order to protect the king."

Over the years, a number of "breakthroughs" have collapsed, with skeptics arguing that Iran was simply buying time. In late 2007, the atomic agency cut a sweeping deal with Tehran to come clean on a number of contentious issues, most important being what the agency called "alleged studies" of atomic weaponization.

By early 2008, the so-called "work plan" had unraveled. Mohammed ElBaradei, the agency's director general at the time, recalled his aggravation at Iran avoiding what he described as a confession.

"It was undeniably frustrating," he wrote in a recent book. "I continued to press both sides, but no one was budging."

Alan Cowell reported from Paris; Thomas Erdbrink from Tehran; Jodi Rudoren from Jerusalem; and William J. Broad from New York. © 2012 The New York Times Company Truthout has licensed this content. It may not be reproduced by any other source and is not covered by our Creative Commons license.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

The media stop reporting as American soldiers getting killed daily overseas they report them as UN soldiers

[-] 1 points by bklynsboy (834) 2 years ago

Another country to blow up and destroy that's not a threat. What the hell is wrong here? Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq, Afghan, none were threats. Trillions spent, millions dead. At our hands. And they want, more?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

This seems to be a gray area on this site

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Where's the media coverage on this?

Oh that's right.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Can't fight wars without soldiers.

Oh Yeah, I forgot. :)

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Applying the Six-Day War to Iran

Friday, 18 May 2012 12:37 By Ray McGovern, Consortium News | News Analysis

America’s neocons continue to beat the drums for war with Iran, brushing aside warnings even from Israeli intelligence veterans. Another part of the propaganda is to merge a future war against Iran with the heroic memories of the Six-Day War nearly 45 years ago, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes.

With the 45th anniversary of the Six-Day War of June 1967 coming early next month, pro-Israel pundits like syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer are again promoting Israel’s faux-narrative on the reasons behind Israel’s decision to attack its neighbors.

The Krauthammers of our domesticated, corporate media seem bent on waging pre-emptive war against an accurate historical rendering of the actual objectives behind that Israeli offensive that overwhelmed Arab armies and seized large swaths of Arab territory, land that hard-line Zionists refer to as “Greater Israel,” i.e. rightly theirs.

With its surprise attacks on June 5, 1967, Israel rapidly defeated the armies of its Arab neighbors. It gained control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

The Sinai was returned to Egypt in 1979 as a result of the Camp David peace accord, a land-for-peace swap that U.S. President Jimmy Carter demanded and that then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin deeply resented.

Jewish settlement has proceeded apace on other territories conquered in the Six-Day War, particularly in the Palestinian West Bank, which Israel’s ruling Likud Party refers to by its Biblical names Judea and Samaria.

Likud’s charter declares that “the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. … The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.” In other words, in the Six-Day War, Israel seized land that hard-line Zionists consider to be part of their ancestral legacy. The surprise attack in 1967 was the means to that end. The Likud Party emerged several years later with the explicit intent of consolidating that control through a settlement policy called “changing the facts on the ground.”

Time to Worry

Yet, despite Israel’s continued expansion into those Palestinian lands, pro-Israel pundits are in a defensive mood these days, and with good reason. They see a particular need this year to whitewash Israel’s surprise attack on its Arab neighbors 45 years ago – not only because the anniversary is likely to draw more than the usual attention – but also because Israel’s strategic position has deteriorated markedly in the past year.

For instance, the 80 million-plus Egyptians are no longer neutered by the joint Mubarak-Israel-U.S. effort to repress them and co-opt them into passivity vis-à-vis the Palestinians. Serious contenders in the upcoming Egyptian election have said they would reconsider the Egypt-Israel Treaty of 1979.

Some leading Egyptian politicians have added that they would fling wide open Egypt’s border with Gaza, where about 1.5 million Palestinians live in what amounts to an open-air prison. These Egyptians also are saying strongly sympathetic things about the widespread suffering in Gaza and the West Bank.

Equally important, Egypt’s present government has already nullified the sweetheart arrangement under which Egypt was providing natural gas to Israel at bargain basement prices. (That alone is a very big deal.)

And, in sad contrast to the deafening silence of senior American officials regarding Israel’s reckless killing of U.S. citizens, such as Rachel Corrie in 2003, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues to demand an apology for Israel’s killing of Turkish citizens aboard the Mavi Marmara on May 31, 2010. The result of that dispute is a sharp diminution in what used to be very close military ties between Turkey and Israel — not to mention a lot of ill will, which can be very corrosive over the longer run.

Misinformed Americans

Regarding the events of 1967, America’s pro-Israel pundit class knows only too well that Egyptians, Turks, Syrians, Jordanians and other audiences in the Middle East will not buy Israel’s faux-history of the Six-Day War — many having been on the receiving end of it. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the primary targets of the disinformation are Americans like those who subscribe to the neoconservative Washington Post, whose editors in recent decades have been careful to keep their readers malnourished on the thin gruel of watered-down (or unreliable) facts about the Middle East (think, Iraq’s WMDs).

So, it would be simply too much to acknowledge, as former Israeli Prime Minister Begin did 30 years ago, in an uncommon burst of hubris-tinged honesty, that Israel’s attack on its neighbors in 1967 was in no way a defensive war — or even a “pre-emptive” war (there being no really dangerous Egyptian or other threat to pre-empt). While Prime Minister in 1982, Begin declared: “In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches (did) not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Such real history would lift the veil now shrouding Israel’s version that plays up the “threat” posed by Egypt and disguises the grand enterprise to expand Israel’s borders and — in double-contravention of international law — to colonize the occupied territories.

To bolster Israel’s heroic rendition of the Six-Day War – and to apply its supposed lessons to Israel’s current plans to bomb Iran – Krauthammer reprised that triumphal version of Israel masterfully defending itself against imminent destruction by the Arabs.

“On June 5 (1967), Israel launched a preemptive strike on the Egyptian air force, then proceeded to lightning victories on three fronts,” Krauthammer wrote, cooing: “The Six-Day War is legend.” He then overlaid that gauzy history onto today’s confrontation with Iran: “Israelis today face the greatest threat to their existence — nuclear weapons in the hands of apocalyptic mullahs publicly pledged to Israel’s annihilation — since May ’67. The world is again telling Israelis to do nothing as it looks for a way out. But if such a way is not found — as in ’67 — Israelis know that they will once again have to defend themselves, by themselves.”

Noting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent coalition with the rival Kadima Party, Krauthammer also mocked the importance of former Israeli intelligence chiefs cautioning against a rush to war with Iran.

He wrote: “So much for the recent media hype about some great domestic resistance to Netanyahu’s hard line on Iran. Two notable retired intelligence figures were widely covered here for coming out against him. Little noted was that one had been passed over by Netanyahu to be the head of Mossad, while the other had been fired by Netanyahu as Mossad chief (hence the job opening). … “The [new] wall-to-wall coalition demonstrates Israel’s political readiness to attack, if necessary. (Its military readiness is not in doubt.) Those counseling Israeli submission, resignation or just endless patience can no longer dismiss Israel’s tough stance as the work of irredeemable right-wingers.”

After reading this Krauthammer op-ed in the May 10 Washington Post, I decided, against my better judgment, to invest a half-hour writing a letter to the editor, trying to make it as factual as possible. Several days after its submission, I have given up any meager hope I may have harbored that the Post would actually print it.

Perhaps that half-hour investment will not have been a complete waste of time if I can share the result with you:

Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, May 13, 2012

In his May 10 op-ed column, “Echoes of ’67: Israel unites,” Charles Krauthammer refers to May 1967 as “Israel’s most fearful, desperate month” and compares it to today, claiming that Iran poses “the greatest threat” to Israel’s existence.

It ain’t necessarily so. In August 1982, then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin admitted publicly: “In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches (did) not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Today’s “threat” from Iran is equally ephemeral. Krauthammer, though, warns ominously about “nuclear weapons in the hands of apocalyptic mullahs publicly pledged to Israel’s annihilation.” The allusion is to an illusion — the alleged threat by Iranian President Ahmadinejad to “wipe Israel off the map.” But he never said that, an inconvenient reality reluctantly acknowledged by Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor early last month. And in January, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his Israeli counterpart both publicly affirmed the unanimous assessment of U.S. intelligence that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon.

Who, then, is being apocalyptic? Krauthammer’s agenda is so transparent that a rigorous Fact Check should be de rigueur.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

So your conclusion is the the Israeli officials & Democratic administration agree that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon - but the pro-war maniacs that gave us the Iraq war - commonly called republiclans - disagree

[-] -1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

No, that's not my conclusion at all. My conclusion is that the US (including the 51st state of Israel) wants to exercise dominance wherever it can to its own economic benefit by suppressing the economies of weaker nations forced to do business on its terms.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

and your proof that Israel is the 51st state ????
LIARS LIE


bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . ha BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE……………………….. BWA hahaha . . . bwa ha ha ha ha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . … . hahaha HE HE HE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha ….. .bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . bwa hahahaha . . . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . . . hahaha . .bwa hahahaha . …….. . hahaha HEHEHE BWA hahaha . .

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

The billions of dollars in welfare it gets every year that not even the state of Mississippi receives plus US military protection and weapons. Take away any of it, including the fact that the US was instrumental in coercing other nations into supporting recognition of Israel before it became a UN member, and Israel would not exist.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Yeah but if they started educated people in places like Mississippi, who would vote for republicans? I mean seriously, the shades of red and blue on our map correspond remarkably with average IQ.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

And if hitler succeeded, Israel would not exist
And if you succeeded, Israel would not exist


When the arabs love their children more than they hate Israel,
there will be peace. - GM

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

People hate Israel because they love their own children, wanting them to grow up in a peaceful world devoid of hegeonomic ambitions. When nations with hegeonomic ambitions cease, there will be peace.

[-] 0 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

You should make this its own post.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Anyone worried about a war with Iran?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I can't wait until we have a president without such a violent foreign policy.

Bush and Obama have made our country terrible when it comes to foreign policy and utilizing bombs instead of diplomacy. I still can't believe no one talks about Black Water being used under this administration. It was such a big deal back when Bush used them in Iraq.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25258) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Blackwater: Shadow Army - YouTube ► 4:25► 4:25

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=black%20water&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CGkQtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DnqM4tKPDlR8&ei=lqTLT9HEBMWi2gXUqrTaCw&usg=AFQjCNEdfP2-rXg8lOhsbVpX4g_Tsr6UkQ&cad=rja

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8Mar 14, 2007 - 4 min - Uploaded by videonation The Nation's Jeremy Scahill describes the rise of Blackwater USA, the world's most powerful mercenary army.


Academi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi Blackwater USA was formed in 1997, by Erik Prince in North Carolina, to provide training support to military and law enforcement organizations. In explaining ... Grizzly APC - Erik Prince - Academi

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=black%20water&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAcademi&ei=lqTLT9HEBMWi2gXUqrTaCw&usg=AFQjCNFGJRreQN3byGEhGCvcrLZCBDUDsg&cad=rja


Blackwater USA www.blackwaterusa.com/

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=black%20water&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CGAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackwaterusa.com%2F&ei=lqTLT9HEBMWi2gXUqrTaCw&usg=AFQjCNFSrNS6II4sV_EkZ40IVThu58-lkw&cad=rja

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The Obama administration awarded Academi a $250 million contract to work for the U.S. State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency in Afghanistan.

Reminds me of Bush when it comes to war and foreign policy.

Obama hires Blackwater, again State Dept. becomes the latest Obama agency to hire the notorious firm, this time for part of $10 billion contract - The company won the contract under one of its many alternate names, “International Development Solutions.” The contract is to "protect embassies around the world."Remember all the protecting they did in Iraq... I mean murder of civilians. -

http://www.salon.com/2010/10/01/obama_blackwater_again/

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Blackwater is an evil force of mercnaries that are supported with our tax dollars. I t should be alarming that the intelligence, and defense community have infiltrated our institutions of higher learning to the degree that they have.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (25258) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

How can Blackwater even be legal?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

It's not. It's literally murder for hire in a foreign country.

Why would we hire any private group when we have a military? It honestly makes ZERO sense.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25258) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I know I will catch crap from the trolls but I am gonna send off another letter to the President and the currently seated government.

Blackwater will be a question that I will ask.

I will post my letter on my talk to the President Post. When I send it off.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Cool. I look forward to reading it. More people need to contact their Congressmen and their President as you're doing.

It's absolutely sick that our government is paying mercenaries that are known for viciously murdering people overseas.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (25258) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The letter has been sent and I have updated the post. Don't know if it was as good as my 1st letter but it felt good to send.

[-] -2 points by PiedrasNegras (-11) 2 years ago

Old Man Dan the GeriTroll!

Bushbama doesn't read your emails, pendejo. Go take your meds and watch Lawrence Welk.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

No, I'm not.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

As in you don't think it will happen? or you aren't worried about it happening?

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

As in I don't think it will happen.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

what's already happening must be stopped

more violence is not allowed

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Fully agree. There's only so many countries you can attack before it's pretty much a world war. When you include NATO and all the nations involved in that, we're pretty much in WW3 light.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2054) 2 years ago

They have to get done with Syria first. The way that's going, that may take a while.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

a little

hoping the political environment will prevent a surface of surface bombing on Iran

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

All this talk about Iran "wanting to" obtain a nuclear weapon reminds me of the Bush administration and Iraq's supposed WMD's.

I remember all the democrats yelling "Fearmonger!" When Bush talked about WMD's and Iraq... and yet they're all quiet now that Obama is the guy saying "WMD's" only instead of saying "weapons of mass destruction" ... he's saying "nuclear weapon."

The wars need to end. And both sides are working for the MIC.

Everyone likes to just blame Bush for everything but they forget that both sides supported efforts against Iraq, when it was popular

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

SNL actually did a really good skit with Bush and Clinton about the situation in Iraq. Bush was giving a speech and looking like an idiot... because he is.. and then Clinton would come in an re-articulate the message and then everyone cheered. And Bush was like "but that's what i just said... Saddam's a creep and an evil doer."

Both parties work for war and the 1%.

How much more obvious does it need to get for people to realize this?

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Hell yes I'm worried about a war with Iran. Israel is the most belligerent and dangerous state in the middle east and they are backed by the most dangerous state in the world the U.S.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

If Israel wanted to, it could kill all palestinians or at least blow up buses full of palestinian children. In stead, after offering peace many times - always rejected - they built a wall.
I wonder if you know, in the last 60 years, how many arabs have been killed by arabs? and how many by Israel?

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Fewer and fewer people are buying this bullshit from the Israeli government about its only acting in selfdefense. I guess you are one of the outliers. Even American Jews can no longer turn a blind eye to the atrocities being commited by the Israeli state. There has been a solution on the table to fix the Israel Palestinaian crisis for years that the entire international community agrees on except for two players the U.S. and Israel. The solution is to return to the 1967 borders. If Israel would agree to this it would remove a major recruiting tool for terrorist organizations and would improve the saftey of Israel and the U.S. but the U.S. and Israel arent interested in peace and security they only care about expansion and domination. I suggest you watch this interview with Norman Finklestien posted below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ_Bw3uTs8A

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

All the inhumanity that Palestinians suffer at the hands of the Israelis with our tacit approval reverberates throughout the Arab/Muslim world, and that is one of the main factors in fueling terrorism. If we were to be fair arbiters in that conflict, you would be able to cut the size of HS by at least half. And if we did not back despotic leaders in the Middle East, you could cut it by another half.

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Israel is currently in the process of commiting an act of genocide against the Palestinian people almost on the same scale that was perpetrated on them at the hieght of Nazi Germany. All with complete complicty and support from the U.S. government.

I quote from an Amnesty International report in June of 2010: Israel's military blockade of Gaza has left more than 1.4 million Palestinian men, women and children trapped in the Gaza Strip, an area of land just 40 kilometres long and 9.5 kilometres wide.

Mass unemployment, extreme poverty and food price rises caused by shortages have left four in five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid. As a form of collective punishment, Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza is a flagrant violation of international law. (End quote)

Quoted from a U.N. report: 50. The Mission investigated several incidents involving the destruction of industrial infrastructure, food production, water installations, sewage treatment plants and housing (chap. XIII). Already at the beginning of the military operations, el-Bader flour mill was the only flour mill in the Gaza Strip still operating. The flour mill was hit by a series of air strikes on 9 January 2009, after several false warnings had been issued on previous days. The Mission finds that its destruction had no military justification. The nature of the strikes, in particular the precise targeting of crucial machinery, suggests that the intention was to disable the factory’s productive capacity. From the facts it ascertained, the Mission finds that there has been a violation of the grave breaches provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Unlawful and wanton destruction which is not justified by military necessity amounts to a war crime. The Mission also finds that the destruction of the mill was carried out to deny sustenance to the civilian population, which is a violation of customary international law and may constitute a war crime. The strike on the flour mill furthermore constitutes a violation of the right to adequate food and means of subsistence.(End quote)

That is just one example of crimes among a laundry list of savagery commited by the Israeli government against the Palestinian civilian population.

Link to report: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies...-HRC-12-48.pdf

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

So since Israel's tactic - to set up a barrier to protect itself from gaza attacks is not legitamate?
Am I saying everything Israel is doing is perfect? NO
17% of the border is with Egypt - is that open ?
Many people object to American aid to Israel.
gaza has around 50km of coast line - why aren't the rich arab neighbors sending in food and medical supplies? Again, if Israel wanted to, it could obliterate gaza. Israel tried to co-exist by "importing" workers but the number of terrorist attacks was unacceptable so Isreal stopped putting its population at risk. If gaza had arab aid and spent it on food and agriculture rather than violent hate, they would flourish "When then love thier children more than they hate us there will be peace" -
GM

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Why arent their arab neighbors sending medical supplies? Because the Israeli navy has a military blockade around Gaza. Mabye you missed a little incident a few years ago when an aid ship sailed from Turkey to do that exact thing and the Israeli special forces boarded their vessel and murdered nine activists. One of which was a sixty year old man. Also, the reason that the border isnt open with Egypt is because the U.S. supplies the Egyptian regiem with all of its arms and most of its military funding. I know that Mubarak has been overthrown but the rest of the regeim is still in place and firmly in the pocket of the U.S.. Apparently you are unconcerned with these facts. It's a clear violation of International law blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza but the beligerent war state of Israel does it anyway just like they have been doing for decades.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

CURRENTLY-
The blockade of the Gaza Strip refers to a land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip by Israel and Egypt since June 2007 Israel eased the blockade for non-military goods in June 2010, and Egypt reopened the Rafah border crossing in 2011 for persons.

In 2006 Hamas won the Palestinian legislative election, triggering the 2006-2007 economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority by Israel and the Quartet on the Middle East. In March 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a Palestinan authority national unity government headed by Ismail Haniya. Shortly after, in June, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in the course of the Battle of Gaza, seizing government institutions and replacing Fatah and other government officials with its own. Following the takeover, Egypt and Israel largely sealed their border crossings with Gaza, on the grounds that Fatah had fled and was no longer providing security on the Palestinian side.

Israel maintains that the blockade is necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip on its cities and to prevent Hamas from obtaining other weapons. Prior to its 2011 opening of the Rafah crossing, Egypt maintained that it could not fully open its side of the border since completely opening the border would represent Egyptian recognition of the Hamas control of Gaza, undermine the legitimacy of the elected Palestinian National Authority and consecrate the split between Gaza and the West Bank.

Facing mounting international calls to ease or lift their blockade in response to the Gaza flotilla raid, Egypt and Israel lessened the restrictions starting in June 2010. Israel announced that it will allow all strictly civilian goods into Gaza while preventing certain weapons from entering Gaza. Egypt partly opened the Rafah border crossing from Egypt to Gaza, primarily for people, but not for supplies, to go through.[8] Israel continues to severely restrict and/or prevent people from entering or exiting Gaza.

Egypt opened the Rafah border crossing permanently on 28 May 2011. Women of all ages and men aged below 18 and above 40 are able to enter Egypt without a visa, although there are still severe restrictions on the movement of personnel and goods to and from Gaza. In practice, however, a great deal of goods are smuggled in through tunnels between Egypt and Gaza, and the quantity of goods smuggled in has increased greatly since the Egyptian revolution in early 2011.

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

You can continue to make appologies for the aparthied state of Israel if you want, thats your perogative but more and more people all over the world are beginning to realize that Israel is a lunatic state. In fact I believe in a poll of 24 countries found Israel currently ranked with countries like North Korea and Iran. Even in this country only fifty percent of respondants said that they veiwed Israel in a positve light. This has nothing to do with anti semitsism but with the way Israel conducts itself which is to say a belligerent warmonger state.

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

The United Nations has issued its latest annual report on the ongoing Israeli siege of the Gaza Strip, slamming the policy as a form of “collective punishment” of Palestinian civilians and creating serious human rights issues.

In particular, the report warns that Israel’s blockade has destroyed the enclave’s health and education services and is leaving much of the population in a state of constant food insecurity. The Strip’s infrastructure is devastated from the 2008 Israeli bombardment “Operation Cast Lead,” in which up to 1,400 Palestinians were killed and 5,500 injured.

Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor slammed the United Nations for the report, saying that discussing the human rights situation in Gaza was a “waste of time” and that the real humanitarian crisis was in southern Israel, where often homemade rockets occasionally hit empty fields.

The UN also warned that there were concerns about human rights in the West Bank, particularly in Area C where Palestinian civilians are under constant threat of expulsion to allow more construction of settlements.

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/01/18/un-slams-gaza-blockade-collective-punishment-of-civilians/

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Last thing and then I'm done arguing with you. You want to know what kind of country Israel has become? Check out the link below. http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/GazaHolo/index.html

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

The Muslim Brotherhood aims to open the Egyptian border with Gaza to commerce, a shift that would transform life for Palestinians there but which is hitting resistance from Egyptian authorities reluctant to change a longstanding policy.

The biggest party in Egypt’s new parliament, the Islamists are not yet in government but have been seeking ways to ease the impact of restrictions imposed by Israel and Egypt on what passes in and out of the territory run by the Hamas group, an ideological offshoot of the Brotherhood.

Aiming to ease chronic power shortages in Gaza, the Brotherhood recently lobbied the Egyptian government to conclude a deal to supply fuel for the territory’s sole power station.

However, the blackouts still plaguing Gaza several weeks after the deal was declared show that changing policy is easier said than done in Cairo, where government is still largely run by remnants of Hosni Mubarak's administration.

“It’s the continuation of the Mubarak method in dealing with the Palestinian issue,” said Gamal Hishmat, the deputy chair of the Egyptian parliamentary committee on foreign affairs and a Muslim Brotherhood MP.

The fuel has yet to arrive because of a dispute over how it should be delivered, according to Hamas and Brotherhood MPs familiar with the details. Hamas wants it to come across Gaza border with Egypt, a precedent that could lead to broader trade through the only Palestinian frontier not controlled by Israel.

Egypt had initially backed this but then said it should go via Israel, the Hamas and Brotherhood sources said. Officials at the Egyptian oil ministry could not be reached for comment.

Home to 1.7 million people, Gaza has been under tight embargo since Hamas took control in 2007. Hamas is deeply hostile to Israel, which signed its peace treaty with Egypt in 1979. Under international pressure, Israel eased import curbs on Gaza in 2010 but for the most part businesses cannot export.

Protests organized by Hamas at the border this week over the power crisis have signaled growing impatience with restrictions Palestinians feel should have ended with Mubarak's rule.

Egypt’s ruling military led by Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi eased restrictions on the passage of travelers last year, but the change fell short of what Palestinians were seeking.

“The Field Marshal of Egypt and the government of Egypt and the whole world stand silent as Gaza remains under blockade,” Mohammed Ashour, a local official in Gaza, told a rally, his voice booming from loud speakers across the frontier.

A brotherhood priority Commerce has been forced underground into tunnels under the border. Mubarak’s last years in power were marked by suspicion bordering on outright hostility towards Hamas, an ideological cousin of the Brotherhood group that was banned under his rule.

“I want the crossing to open completely, so that whoever wants to travel from Gaza can come to Egypt,” said Mahmoud Ghozlan, spokesman for the Brotherhood. “We support opening the crossing for import and export.”

Hamas wants the same. “We are not happy with the tunnels,” Mahmoud Al-Zahar, a Hamas leader from Gaza, told Reuters.

For the Brotherhood, the first justification is moral. The Gaza blockade is one of the most emotive issues in the Arab world. There would also be an economic benefit for northern Sinai, one of the poorest parts of Egypt.

For Israel, the idea does not appear a cause for concern.

“The Israeli foreign minister has suggested that we do everything we can to help Gaza stop depending on Israel for anything and instead deal directly with Egypt,” an Israeli diplomat said. He added that checks would be needed on the Egyptian side to prevent arms reaching Gaza but said the fuel deal did not raise any alarm.

The Egyptian position has long been shaped by concern Israel would relinquish all responsibility for Gaza were the border with Sinai opened. With the rise of Hamas in Gaza, Cairo was also guided by concern Palestinian militancy could spill over.

A diplomat familiar with Gaza policy said Cairo’s worry was now that yielding to Hamas demands would weaken Egypt’s leverage over the group and undermine efforts to nudge it towards reconciliation with the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Some Palestinians share the fear that opening the border with Egypt would allow Israel to wash its hands of Gaza while also entrenching the divide with the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority.

Zahar did not expect any serious change in policy until Egypt elects a new president, completing the transition from army rule at the end of June. “In this interim period I do not believe fundamental changes will happen,” he said.

http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL6E8EL13Q20120321

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

those ragheads and not born warriors

it's not OK to drop bombs on them

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I don't like having to agree with you, but I do.

[Removed]