Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Passing the OK for another war, right under your nose.

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 19, 2012, 8:06 a.m. EST by GNAT (150)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

H.R.4310 - Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes.


Content & Progress of this bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h4310/


69 Comments

69 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

Romney's gaff may be an easy target but the people already in office are planning war while you discus gaffs.

[-] 4 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

I'm starting to believe the obama partisans don't care that obama is sending our troops to another battleground.

[-] 2 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

Their comments around unions and green-energy give an inside view of motive.

[-] -1 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 2 years ago

They don't care. The love Obama and if you disagree with him you are a racist.

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

shut up about Romney already

I already don't care about him Mea Culpa (Judge's Johanna)

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

N.W.O, a bipartisan effort.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Ministry!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

hells yeah

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Good post.

HR 4310 is titled National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4310

Sections you need to worry about in regards to a new war

  • 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

(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.

[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

Right on man. It was a good find. You post a lot of substantive materiel, much props.

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

Thanks.

I just want to know where the media is at?

We have military exercises going on over there to let Iran know "we mean business" yet our own media is keeping it black listed. We have congress making war with Iran policy and yet they're talking about who would make a better friend Romney or Obama?

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 2 years ago

That may be one of the reasons why the price of oil is going down - last time I saw it posted it was at $91 and change a barrel and going down.

Think this might have something to do with it?

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 2 years ago

obamas media does not report anything that would make him look bad comeon man dont be daft.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

I expect the republicans to push hard for military action against Iran when and if Obama starts a second term. The democrats showed, with Iraq, that they're a patriotic bunch and I don't think they'll object too much. Iran is the big prize and this NWO business is coming to a head. War is very effective at distracting people from economic hardship.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So protest against this! You're blaming Pres Obama but he didn't write it.

Protest Pres Obama! But don't leave out the pols who wrote it, 'cause then that would be just a partisan attack on Pres Obama. Protest the fear mongering atmosphere created 10 years ago that has allowed this.

If not then your just a partisan attacking Pres Obama!

Why? Because he is GONNA sign the defense bill?

Ok. I agree this is a bad piece of policy. Let's protest. Who actually wrote it! You don't know do you? Doesn't matter, let's just blame Pres Obama.

PROTEST!!!. What happened to the anti war movement? Let's resurrect it. Protest it. Protest it. Stop whining about Pres Obama and protest!

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

congress wrote it. the president signed it

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Simplistic, and hides the reality of where blame lies, and therefore creates more difficulty if we want to prevent this war, & future wars. I you really are against war wouldn't you be interested in which pols voted for or against?

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

the blame lies with all those that voted for it and signed it

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That's right! And the people who created the fear mongering atmosphere that allows these civil rights violations, and drone attacks to continue.

We must change the atmosphere of fear that has been used to achieve these things since the 9/11 attacks were exploited.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 2 years ago

How many people were at S17? The news I saw said a couple of hundred. I wasent there but it looked like a lot more on live stream. Why don't the people at the DNC use their vast corporate resources to publish the truth for once? Then maybe the next time there is a protest the american people will hear about it.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am a registered independent. I was at S17 all 3 days. I saw a few thousand at the most during the spektra pipeline march/concert. Otherwise the numbers were not what they need to be.

You think the DNC (who is using OWS rhetoric, & incorporating it's ideas into policy) are responsible for the poor media coverage?

And you say nothing, & leave out the RNC who attacks OWS viciously?

And you suggest I'm DNC? I just wrote a comment toprotest the dem Pres and the 77 dems who voted for hr 4310.

I guess your angry because I actually mentioned the repubs who created the fear mongering,atmosphere & wrote all the civil rights violations we are fighting against.

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 2 years ago

I Apologize for that slight. I will edit it. I just feel we all need to stop defending these two stooges and cast our votes for a third party. It doesn't matter wich one. All we can hope to do is take enough percentage away so that nether candidate receives 271 electoral votes and the decision goes to the house. it may not be much but at least it will show the unpopularity of curant policy on both sides of the isle. We must take the legitimacy away from them.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well if it goes to the Repub House we get Romney. Is that what you want?

In any event if you feel you must vote 3rd party, I say more power to you. My hope in regards to 3rd party is not to make the decision go to the repub House but that enough people vote 3rd party that the 2 parties get a message.

You are in Cali so you probably know that Cali is solid Blue. But the parties should be afraid that they are losing the people. They are.

We might have leverage to pass real change that might help the 99%.

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 2 years ago

exactly. we need people to start leaving the partys in droves. In my opinion that is the single most important message to get out there.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Perhaps I like the 'money out of politics' as the most important message, but I won't argue about it.

[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

lol, there is no way to interpret this as partisan. Though just this once, it was amusing watching you try.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Ca Representative Howard Mckeon (R) is the sponsor. There were 222 repubs who voted for it 77 Dems.

This is where your outrage should be directed. Not at the guy who hasn't signed it yet!!!

Amusing? You're a joke! Transparent. You have no prob that repubs created and voted overwhelmingly for it.

Why do you give the repubs a pass.?

The constituents of these reps should get emails stating that their reps are war mongers. The local anti war movement should be informed and protest them. The local Occupy as well.

Orwe could just rant at the guy who has not signed the defense budget yet!

LMFAO.

transparent!

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

i figured the pentagon would have proposed the appropriation and the private weapons industry would have done the writing

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

the language is not related to a particular weapons system. but the pentagon/weapons industry are involved. However the people who write it and vote for it must betargeted for protest/pressure if we are against this war or any war.

Or we can just scream at Pres Obama. but then that would giving the other party a pass & therefore be just a partisan attack.

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

then the white house press . the congress press

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

huh?

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

doesn't the government have it's own press release

someone told me that the white house press claimed the protests in the middle east at the US embassy were not over US policy but anger over a video insulting Mohamed. (this statement requires we discount the real reasons)

does the white house press completely change with presidency?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

WH Press chgs w/ ea Admin. The contention the ME protests are all about the film is incomplete in my opinion.

Our decades of supporting brutal dictators, & our oil wars are at the root of all real anger. this Pres has been criticized for his 1st foreign trip which they called an apology tour. because he acknowledged our mistakes in the ME..

Regardless of Pres Obama mea culpa (see how I snuck that in) we are still guilty with the drone bombings at least.

Salmon Rushdie was on Stewart explaining how since the fatwa against him, an industry of outrage has evolved that will look for and find (cartoons, films....etc) offenses against Islam to incite the people when they want to create cover for violence.

This appears to be the case on this past 9/11 right before our election.

Obviously there is great justification for much anger towards the west. But I believe most muslims DO NOT hate the US. But those that do use this tactic effectively to create protests & cover for violence.

There was a film, the protesters have screamed their anger at it! But their anger is mainly about our actions over the decades. And the people inciting the protests I believe are extremsts who are trying to gain power during the arab spring transitional efforts.

It's complicated.

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

don't we incite protests ?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well we are creating hatred & protests with drone strikes.

Is that what you mean?

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

I meant "WE" as in OWS posters inciting protest in the US

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Ahh! I thought "WE" the US. OWS is non violent as far as I know.

Don't really see the similarity.

But we should keep on inciting for anti war, as well as economic equity.

We need to ressurect the Anti War movement. Whatever happened to that?

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

democrats wouldn't pick up Ending War

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What about republicans?

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

not a word

"don't ask, don't tell"

[-] 1 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

Well, for anyone else who is interested in actual information about the language, the progress of the bill, and who voted for it, can find it by following the link I posted in the article. Thx for playing and we'll be right back after a brief commercial interruption.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Who wrote HR 4310?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Interns did. It was originally introduced by Rep. Howard McKeon.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

interns? LMFAO. What a joke.

Obam Obama. He is a war monger because the interns wrote it!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You think that representatives write bills themselves? That's the joke.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You think interns decide what a rep will put his name on. You think this rep is not responsible for this law. That is a ridiculous stretch. Just another feeble attempt at providing cover for a republican. Mckeons interns wrote what he wanted, & Mckeon put his name on it.

He can't hide behind interns. More comedy that's all your suggestion is.

interns? lol.

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

don't the companies with an invested interest in the government write the bills

like the military industrial complex

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

frequently. We should protest those corps as well. But your not suggesting this gives the author and yes voters a pass are you?

the corps have to get a congressman to write it! So we should target that one especially! & anyone who votes for it. And also the Pres when he signs it.

If we really care we will seek out the truth of the roots & all responsible! Or we can just use this obscenity as a partisan bludgeon against 1 person/party.

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

the corps an hand the budget to the politician and the politician can sponsor it

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sure. I recall the repubs brought in big oil for the energy policies, & big pharma for drug plans,

Happens all the time. It's horrible. Pols who do thatshould be protested.

If MIC wrote the Iran war language that doesn't Mckeon is ansolved. That makes him MORE guilty. Right?

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

indeed guilty of compliance with the policy

I've heard budgets are larger than any congress member has time to read

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Not surprised. Someone in each party knows what's in each budget item they advise the leaders, who then give the members marching orders.

Bad system. One day we WILL have direct democracy and these corrupt bribery prone representatives will be history.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You asked who "wrote" it. Interns wrote it. Of course they're not the policy makers deciding what goes into it. But that's not what you asked. Most bills are typed up by unpaid slave labor.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Pedantic, nit picking, feeble attempt to distract from republican responsibility! You know full well what I was asking. More evidence that you are partisan?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

In addition to the nitpicking, I identified the specific Republican who introduced the bill for you.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Please. I knew in May. I was asking because republican responsibility is always ignored amongst this group.

And I responded with the answer before your silly intern distraction.

"Obama did it! Obama did it!" LOL

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You often try to backtrack and try to undo things that you've posted by saying that you were intentionally messing with people. Yet somehow you never convince me.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What new unfounded accusation is this?

"the interns did it" "I didn't know" "depends what IS is"

"Obama did it!"

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

Well V, why don't you tell us? Thats what the thread is for. Try addressing the individuals and any personal or corrupt motives they have and leave out the labels. Allow the facts to speak.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I guess you don't care about the threat of war really or you would know.

You are only interested in this issues value in beating Pres Obama over the head.

You are a transparent joke.

Obama did it! Obama did it! he is a war monger because he is GONNA sign the defense budget!

LMFAO!

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I have to point out that when I was trying to talk about the threat of war yesterday, you simply ridiculed me. So it doesn't seem like you care, either.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That is a bald face lie! What evidence do you have? Another of your distractions. How very republican of you!

I care enough to know that thefear mongering atmosphere created 10 years ago is at the roots of these war/civil right violations. And fair enough to state it repeatedly.

I care enough to know which pols/parties are behind these obscenities! I care enough to protest on the streets & challenge the partisanship here that feebly attempts to provide cover for the repubs who created & continue to perpetrate these war mongering actions.

Peace

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah we disagree regarding the abilities of US/Russia cyber war.

And yeah I made a joke. But that doesn't mean I don't care.

We disagree! That's all. I am more concerned about the original concerns of OWALLS.

Economic justice/equity, War is an overlap that I have focused on for 30 years. Cyber war is a portion that I think the US dominates (as in all areas of war).

So my sarcasm is simply expressing my refusal to succumb to the fear mongering that so many republicans use to get us to spend more on defense or give up our civil rights.

Cool? Don't be afraid! Care but do not succumb to their fear tactics! You must be strong, resolute, & clear minded!

[-] 0 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Ah, but it's so much easier to find one scapegoat instead of working to change the voting habits of the Republican Party (or any Party for that matter). Anyway back to your point, I am with you. Some friends and I got in touch with like minded people we know and we emailed our respective Representatives and some of us called their Offices to at least say, "Vote No". There were 39 of us doing that.

One of the guys in the group roughly measured the effort. Over three calendar weeks from mid April to early May, each of us spent a total of 1-hour of our time dialing and emailing Representatives. It was a snap for some who've done this before. It took newbies longer. But on average, each of us spent an hour of our time.

His point was the law of large numbers. He figured that there are ~5,000,000 people who think like we do and would want to spend an hour of their time "briefing" their Representative to vote No. (None of us but him knows how he came up with the number because we got pretty shit faced at the bar while talking about it and other legislation.) In our small group, each of us averaged 3 emails and 1 phone call to our own Representative. With that stat over the large number, there could have been 15M emails and 5M phone calls. One hour spent to yield 20M touch points to the House, who knows what kind of difference it could have made, right?

As a follow up, we sent an email to our Representative. If they voted yes, then the email said that we weren't voting for their reelection. If they voted No, then the email read congratulations, you're getting our vote during the next election.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well I think the type of effort you suggest is difficult but the right approach.

And in addition to the legislators we must be pressuring the Pres the same way.

You are a voice of sanity.

Good luck!

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 2 years ago

Well, for anyone else who is interested in actual information about the language, the progress of the bill, and who voted for it, can find it by following the link I posted in the article. Thx for playing and we'll be right back after a brief commercial interruption.