Plans to Strike Iran “ready,” And Congress Moves The War Goal Posts Closer

[Capt Bringdown]

Ripped from: Plans to Strike Iran “ready,” And Congress Moves The War Goal Posts Closer (http://my.firedoglake.com/ctuttle/2012/05/17/plans-to-strike-iran-ready-and-congress-moves-the-war-goal-posts-closer/)


Reuters: U.S. plans for a possible military strike on Iran are ready and the option is “fully available” (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-iran-nuclear-usa-israel-idUSBRE84G0AS20120517), the U.S. ambassador to Israel said, days before Tehran resumes talks with world powers which suspect it of seeking to develop nuclear arms.
- more - (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-iran-nuclear-usa-israel-idUSBRE84G0AS20120517)



AP: US envoy to Israel: US ready to strike Iran (http://news.yahoo.com/us-envoy-israel-us-ready-strike-iran-152828071.html)

…In his speech, Shapiro acknowledged the clock is ticking.

“We do believe there is time. Some time, not an unlimited amount of time,” Shapiro said. “But at a certain point, we may have to make a judgment that the diplomacy will not work."
- more - (http://news.yahoo.com/us-envoy-israel-us-ready-strike-iran-152828071.html)


House:

On the diplomatic front, the House is expected to vote Thursday on H.Res. 568, a resolution expressing the importance of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. While this is a non-binding resolution, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) warned that it urges President Obama to affirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability, and oppose policies that accept containment of a nuclear-capable Iran.

"This language represents a significant shift in U.S. policy, and would guarantee that talks with Iran currently scheduled for May 23, would fail," Kucinich said. "Current U.S. policy is that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. Instead, H.Res. 568 draws the red line for military action at Iran (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/228027-kucinich-were-getting-ready-for-war-against-iran-with-thursday-votes) achieving a nuclear weapons capability, a nebulous and undefined term that would include a civilian nuclear program."
- more - (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/228027-kucinich-were-getting-ready-for-war-against-iran-with-thursday-votes)

Senate:


Senators tussle over new Iran sanctions

Republicans blocked an attempt by Senate Democrats on Thursday to pass new sanctions against Iran, complaining the final language in the bill, which they had negotiated for months, is not tough enough to deter Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Republicans complained Democrats provided them the final language just minutes before they were asked to approve it. Republicans said the new wording appeared to water down the threat of U.S. military action against Iran if that country developed nuclear weapons; something President Obama has said is on the table. (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/17/politics/iran-sanctions/index.html)
- more - (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/17/politics/iran-sanctions/index.html)

[CosmicCowboy]

Meh...the US Ambassador to Israel announced it?...It's just Obama trying to posture and act tough to get the Democrats Jewish donor base off the sideline and hopefully giving him money.

[coyotes_geek]

Doesn't it make sense for a global military to have plans ready for pretty much every scenario someone can think of? I've always kinda assumed that somewhere in the Pentagon there's a filing cabinet full of plans to invade everyone from Iran to Russia to Canada to the local Hooters.

[Capt Bringdown]

Doesn't it make sense for a global military to have plans ready for pretty much every scenario someone can think of? I've always kinda assumed that somewhere in the Pentagon there's a filing cabinet full of plans to invade everyone from Iran to Russia to Canada to the local Hooters.

"...it is standard procedure for armies to draw up plans for a broad range of possible scenarios. But Shapiro's comments were the most explicit sign yet that preparations have been stepped up."

[Capt Bringdown]

Ho hum, just another war.

[clambake]

not much chance of a sneak attack......thanks to facebook.

[Winehole23]

Ho hum, just another war.we'll see. seems like the same old song and dance to me.

[coyotes_geek]

Don't want: War

Do want: A military that's constantly prepared for it

I'm not really seeing what the fuss is here.

[Winehole23]

somebody's spidey sense must be tingling; I don't see it either

[Capt Bringdown]

we'll see. seems like the same old song and dance to me.

Yeah, we're known for our restraint and good judgment when it comes to the middle east.

[Winehole23]

ok

[Winehole23]

I don't rule out the possibility of war with Iran, indeed it seems distinctly probable to me in the medium term, but the Congressional and diplomatic saber rattling is hardly unusual.

it's possible the envoy's comments, taken together with loud noises about being *tuff* on Iran coming from the US Congress, bring us slightly closer to war.

but it's also possible this is election year posturing, and/or is intended to put pressure on Iran ahead of the upcoming nuclear parley.

[Capt Bringdown]

Saber rattling and posturing is significant, as demonstrated in the run up to Iraq part 2.

[Winehole23]

sure, it can be

[Capt Bringdown]

Don't want: War

Do want: A military that's constantly prepared for it

I'm not really seeing what the fuss is here.

"Constantly prepared," is that what we're doing here? Seems like a distinction could be made between preparedness and making aggressive threats of preemptive strikes/invasions.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm sure it could, I just don't see that as being the case here though.

[Capt Bringdown]

sure, it can be

Yup, context and stakes are pretty important in this matter. Re the stakes, I reckon they're a lot higher than we faced/are facing in Iraq.

[Winehole23]

can you flesh that out a little bit? it's not intuitively clear to me what you mean.

[Capt Bringdown]

I'm sure it could, I just don't see that as being the case here though.

Do you see making threats of a preemptive strike as preparedness? Seems to me preparedness would center around defending Israel if she were attacked. That's not what we're doing/saying at all.

[Winehole23]

what are we doing and saying, as you see it?

[coyotes_geek]

Do you see making threats of a preemptive strike as preparedness? Seems to me preparedness would center around defending Israel if she were attacked. That's not what we're doing/saying at all.

I certainly respect that you may see things differently, but from my POV I see some sabre rattling at worst.

[Capt Bringdown]

what are we doing and saying, as you see it?

Making threats and drawing up plans of a preemptive strike against Iran.

[Winehole23]

saber rattling can be dangerous in it's own right.

in principle, the nip connotes the bite but does not denote what the bite would denote; in practice, sometime people take "aggressive posturing" wrong, and it leads to an actual fight.

[Winehole23]

Making threats and drawing up plans of a preemptive strike against Iran.I'm hardly surprised there's planning for such contingencies, would be more surprised if there wasn't, tbh.

[Capt Bringdown]

I certainly respect that you may see things differently, but from my POV I see some sabre rattling at worst.

Not sure our individual differences are relevant. The Bush, and now apparently Obama doctrine of preemptive strikes has been a significant change in our foreign policy, don't you agree? At the rhetorical level at least?

[Capt Bringdown]

I'm hardly surprised there's planning for such contingencies, would be more surprised if there wasn't, tbh.

If you attack, we will defend - that's one contingency

We reserve the right to attack first because we think you might do something bad - that's another contingency

[CosmicCowboy]

Don't worry. No way Obama attacks Iran. He's just talking tough trying to counteract his anti-Israel image with Jewish voters.

[Wild Cobra]

Nothing to see here. Military planners are always putting together scenarios that might be needed. that doesn't mean there is any intent.

[Winehole23]

A recent poll found that 58 percent of American Jews approve of President Obama’s handling of the relationship between the U.S.and Israel,as opposed to 40 percent who disapprove.



The poll, which was published by the American Jewish Committee, reveals that the majority of the community will vote for President Obama in November.



According to the poll, 61% of U.S. Jews support Obama, 28% support his Republican rival Mitt Romney and 11% are undecided. A survey published about a month ago by the Public Religion Research Institute revealed more or less the same numbers - 62% for Obama and 30% for Romney.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-elections-2012/new-poll-shows-majority-of-u-s-jews-support-obama-s-policy-toward-israel-1.427382

[coyotes_geek]

Not sure our individual differences are relevant. The Bush, and now apparently Obama doctrine of preemptive strikes has been a significant change in our foreign policy, don't you agree? At the rhetorical level at least?

I guess I'd have to disagree. I really think this is all just a bunch of posing on our part.

[Capt Bringdown]

Don't worry. No way Obama attacks Iran. He's just talking tough trying to counteract his anti-Israel image with Jewish voters.

It's significant that boasting about plans to instigate another war would appeal to any voting group, ain't it?

[Capt Bringdown]

I guess I'd have to disagree. I really think this is all just a bunch of posing on our part.

Are we posing or not is one issue.

What is the pose that we're taking (in this case our self-proclaimed right to preemptively attack any other sovereign nation we don't like) is another item.

Shouldn't be conflated IMO.

[Winehole23]

It's significant that boasting about plans to instigate another war would appeal to any voting group, ain't it?significant? more like mundane.

it's 2012: I expect to see a lot of flamboyant pandering to special interests before it's over. imho, it has barely just begun in earnest...

[Capt Bringdown]

significant? more like mundane.

it's 2012: I expect to see a lot of flamboyant pandering to special interests before it's over. imho, it has barely just begun in earnest...

The substance of the flamboyant pandering - in this case the threat of starting another war - is hardly mundane or insignificant.

[Winehole23]

the USA has been at war more or less continuously since the end of WWII, so in that sense war and talk of war have been mundane for like, 60 years now

[Winehole23]

but you could be right. we'll see what happens.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

significant? more like mundane.

it's 2012: I expect to see a lot of flamboyant pandering to special interests before it's over. imho, it has barely just begun in earnest...

I agree commenting on the same repeated behavior over and over again is pretty mundane.

They have been ramping up this particular rhetoric even before the Afghan 'withdrawal.' Commenting on it when it happens once more is not very significant.

[Winehole23]

FuzzyLumpkins weighs in with a snotty dismissal of commonplaces and discussion of commonplaces.

What is he here for?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I was agreeing with you. You dismissed the topic as inconsequential due to it being old hat. that made sense to me.

If you are going to complain about somebody being dismissive then look to yourself.


significant? more like mundane.

it's 2012: I expect to see a lot of flamboyant pandering to special interests before it's over. imho, it has barely just begun in earnest...

Frankly, it's ironic that you would use that reasoning but hey whatevs.

[Winehole23]

I was agreeing with you. You dismissed the topic as inconsequential due to it being old hat. that made sense to me.you only thought you were agreeing with me. inconsequential and mundane aren't synonyms. calling out Captain Bringdown for overhyping something doesn't mean I think it's inconsequential, just less important.

subtlety's not really your thing, is it?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

significant? more like mundane.

significant
[sig-nif-i-kuhnt]   Origin
sig·nif·i·cant
   [sig-nif-i-kuhnt]
adjective
1.
important; of consequence.

[Capt Bringdown]

With regard to consequence and consequences, it's been pointed out that we've been at war pretty much non-stop since WWII. Therefore, it's safe to say that drum beating has not been without consequence, and is therefore not mundane and insignificant. Unless you take war as a given and inevitable, which it is clearly not.

[Winehole23]

significant
[sig-nif-i-kuhnt]   Origin
sig·nif·i·cant
   [sig-nif-i-kuhnt]
adjective
1.
important; of consequence.and mundane is a near synonym of ordinary.

something that happens everyday can be significant. I thought CB overstressed the importance of war planning and saber rattling and responded to him by emphasizing the everyday character of what he finds so ominous. I discounted the importance, sure, but I don't think the importance went to zero -- there's a continuum of values between nothing and everything. it goes back to the subtlety thing. jeez,what a pedant you are.

[Winehole23]

for example, brushing your teeth is mundane, but I wouldn't call it inconsequential or lacking in importance.

[Winehole23]

but if you were to say oral hygiene is the foundation of good heath and the lack of it portends physical ruin, in reply I might mention how ordinary and survivable cavities and gingivitis actually are. in so doing I would not be knocking the importance of brushing and flossing per se, but questioning an exaggeration.

your whole method amounts to exaggerating what people say and being derisive about that, so I can see how that would be a blind spot for you.

[boutons_deux]

The Business of America is the War Business

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The implication was that it was not so much significant as it was moreso mundane. I was talking about one word and while you are trying to fixate on the other as if it wasn't said and dismissed as ordinary it certainly refutes your notion of degree. At that point, why even mention it being significant immediately preceding the denigration?

Lack of concision is not a positive. Just means you cannot convey your thoughts clearly.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Further by claiming that it is ordinary implies that this type of rhetoric happens all the time. Nothing has happened. I will leave it to you to figure the logical extension from there as to this particular exchange.

:lol nuance
:lol your initiative

[Nbadan]

You guys need to learn more about Israel, most Israeli don't want to go to war with Iran but just like in the U.S., there are a group of Neo-Cons, like Netenyahu who is the Dick Cheney of Israel, which always seems to get the bulk of the M$M attention when it comes to foreign policy matters...these are the guys who also apparently have considerable pull with the American M$M who keep pushing the U.S. through pressure by the media..... to attack Iran ....even though Iran has recently signaled that it has no plans to build a nuclear weapon and is open to letting the IAEA inspect its nuclear energy project....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Most don't want to yet they vote Netanyahu as PM. Okie dokie.

[Nbadan]

Most don't want to yet they vote Netanyahu as PM. Okie dokie.

Yeah, but for the same reason that the 'Muslim Brotherhood' wins in Egypt even though most Egyptians don't want Sharia Law...all the other political factions can't beat these extremists...but keep generalizing without doing your own research...it is soooooo you....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, but for the same reason that the 'Muslim Brotherhood' wins in Egypt even though most Egyptians don't want Sharia Law...all the other political factions can't beat these extremists...but keep generalizing without doing your own research...it is soooooo you....

The candidate of the MB is saying that but he has not been elected.

:lol research

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-egypt-electionmursi-newsmaker-pixl5e8ggkgk-20120520,0,627779.story


CAIRO, May 20 (Reuters) - The Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed
Mursi has cast himself as a reluctant latecomer to the race for
the Egyptian presidency who is running to serve the nation and
God, striking a conservative tone with promises to implement
Islamic law.

Also not all MB members support Sharia implementation. There are a significant faction that attempts to appeal to moderates precisely because of the views of the electorate.

Netanyahu was elected and is quite outspoken about his militancy.

Try harder.

[spursncowboys]

Don't want: War

Do want: A military that's constantly prepared for it

I'm not really seeing what the fuss is here.
IF that is so, then you should be against the draw down. With the decrease in the amount of soldiers, but even more dangerous, and the amount of Brigades-we can't successfully wage any kind of war. Except maybe a shock and awe with no boots on the ground or a "small footprint" for a very small amount of time.

Then the NCO leadership being withheld from promotions and losing money every year (no pay raises since bush and now having to pay 600% higher insurance premium) I don't see these new soldiers being taught the lessons learned from this past decade, which is what is needed for a war with Iran. This wouldn't be an easy war with low casualties.

[spursncowboys]

From my understanding since 9-11, we have been planning on an African war moreso than another Middle East war.

[spursncowboys]

None of this matters since another war would be unpopular and there are no real leaders in one of the two future presidents. Plus Romney wouldn't get any money from the House( Tea Party and Dems ) and BHO wouldn't get it (Repubs will have control of both houses.

[spursncowboys]

IMO playing the scary "they are trying to take us to war" card is just as bad as "the terrorists are trying to attack us" card.

[boutons_deux]

IMO playing the scary "they are trying to take us to war" card is just as bad as "the terrorists are trying to attack us" card.

False equivalence.

[spursncowboys]

How so?

[Winehole23]

The implication was that it was not so much significant as it was moreso mundane. I was talking about one word and while you are trying to fixate on the other as if it wasn't said and dismissed as ordinary it certainly refutes your notion of degree. At that point, why even mention it being significant immediately preceding the denigration?Uh huh. You're the one who went definitional. Not sure what your point was there. Are you ok?

Lack of concision is not a positive. Just means you cannot convey your thoughts clearly.No, you cannot. I think you've just demonstrated that.

[Wild Cobra]

You guys need to learn more about Israel, most Israeli don't want to go to war with Iran but just like in the U.S., there are a group of Neo-Cons, like Netenyahu who is the Dick Cheney of Israel, which always seems to get the bulk of the M$M attention when it comes to foreign policy matters...these are the guys who also apparently have considerable pull with the American M$M who keep pushing the U.S. through pressure by the media..... to attack Iran ....even though Iran has recently signaled that it has no plans to build a nuclear weapon and is open to letting the IAEA inspect its nuclear energy project....
Do you know any Israeli national?

I have met and talked with some about the middle east hostilities. They were Engineers from NOVA (http://www.nova.co.il/11-en/Nova.aspx).

Yes, Israeli's don't want to go to war, but they will if their country is at risk.

Don't want to does not mean will not.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

inconsequential and mundane aren't synonyms.


Uh huh. You're the one who went definitional. Not sure what your point was there.

Its really not my fault you cannot keep up with what you stated.

As for me 'exaggerating,' you should look up the meaning of the word.

Maybe if you keep throwing shit out something will eventually stick.

[boutons_deux]

IMO playing the scary "they are trying to take us to war" card is just as bad as "the terrorists are trying to attack us" card.

because the MIC/UCA war-profiteers DID take us to a false war in Iraq. 100s of 1000s of lives wasted and $Ts shifted to the MIC. The ONLY gain was US/UK oilcos getting Iraq oil business that Saddam was giving exclusively to France, Russia, China.

terror-mongering is just the MIC vampire squid sucking in our wealth and raping our freedoms ( freedoms the tea baggers don't give shit about), but far fewer die and it's a lot cheaper. Cheaper to fly drones around the world and murder lots of people the MIC doesn't like, but it's still not a war.

[Winehole23]

Its really not my fault you cannot keep up with what you stated.so you say, but you've been having a little trouble making your case...

As for me 'exaggerating,' you should look up the meaning of the word. ...even with the help of a dictionary. You mostly deride what you have first caricatured, like every other blockhead around here. Surly!

[Winehole23]

as well as amusing. must say, I've been impressed with what a crankypants you've been of late.

have you considered changing those wet drawers?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so you say, but you've been having a little trouble making your case...
...even with the help of a dictionary. You mostly deride what you have first caricatured, like every other blockhead around here. Surly!

YES!!! THE MARTYR CARD! :lmao

Poor you. All by your non-deriding self. Or is this a case of more hypocrisy on your part?

As for the proving my case, I was leaving it to you but apparently you are deficient of discerning the nuance. When you are saying two things are not synonymous you are deducing their definition. That was the first instance of arguing definition. As typical you are denying a definition in your passive aggressive way but that is still what is gotten at. I just cut right to the chase.

Do you need me to post the definition of synonymous too? I posted significant because I thought it funny that the first line had 'of consequence.' I bet that this definition will be so direct as to be amusing as well.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

as well as amusing. must say, I've been impressed with what a crankypants you've been of late.

have you considered changing those wet drawers?

Winehole does blockhead?

[Winehole23]

sometimes you barely make sense, Fuzzy. this is one of those times.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you only thought you were agreeing with me. inconsequential and mundane aren't synonyms. calling out Captain Bringdown for overhyping something doesn't mean I think it's inconsequential, just less important.

subtlety's not really your thing, is it?


significant
[sig-nif-i-kuhnt]   Origin
sig·nif·i·cant
   [sig-nif-i-kuhnt]
adjective
1.
important; of consequence.


Uh huh. You're the one who went definitional. Not sure what your point was there. Are you ok?
No, you cannot. I think you've just demonstrated that.

Again introspection is important The above is the temporal order of the posts I ma talking about. Lets enumerate them so it's easier to follow. You apparently need the hand-holding.

1) You claim that my use of the word inconsequential is incorrect because you misinterpreted the word I was talking about and then pointed out a red herring of false equivalence in definition. This was the first argument about definition.

2) I give the definition of the word I was talking about.

3) You claim I started the debate on definition then proceed to deride it.

It's actually funny watching you becomes that which you abhor. What's not so fun is you projecting it onto me.