is...(breathing)
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
ridiculous
is it thanksgiving already?
how ya like me now.....
fear the bird
im ready for some football
i used to like him.....
Intelligence Committee Chair Describes Explosive Confrontation Between Netanyahu and American Ambassador
By Jeffrey Goldberg
inShare.Sep 6 2012, 2:57 PM ET
Rep. Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, says that his much-discussed meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem late last month did, in fact, devolve into an sharp confrontation between Netanyahu and the American ambassador to Israel, the former National Security Council official (and former Obama campaign Jewish liaison), Dan Shapiro.
Rogers told a Michigan radio interviewer earlier this week that he had not previously witnessed such a high-level confrontation, and he described Israeli leaders as being at "wits' end" over what they see as President Obama's unwillingness to provide them with his "red lines" in the effort to stop Iran's nuclear program. He also said that neither the Israelis nor the Iranians believe that Obama would use force to stop the nuclear program. (UPDATE: Rogers said as well he believes the Israelis will "probably" bomb Iran if they don't get clearer red lines from the U.S.)
Rogers description of the meeting directly contradicts repeated Administration assertions that there is "no daylight" on the Iran issue with the Israeli government. Shortly after the meeting took place, Israeli press reports appeared suggesting that Netanyahu and Shapiro had engaged in an argument, but Shapiro soon dismissed those reports, calling them "silly" and saying, "The published account of that meeting did not reflect what actually occurred in the meeting. The conversations were entirely friendly and professional."
Rogers, speaking to WJR radio host Frank Beckmann, painted a very different picture. He said the meeting, originally scheduled to be a discussion of intelligence and technical issues between himself and the prime minister, spun out of control when Netanyahu began lambasting Shapiro over the Administration's Iran policy. When Beckmann asked Rogers to describe the tenor of the meeting, he said: "Very tense. Some very sharp... exchanges and it was very, very clear the Israelis had lost their patience with the (Obama) Administration." He went on, "There was no doubt. You could not walk out of that meeting and think that they had not lost their patience with this Administration."
Rogers said Israeli frustration grows from what they see -- and he sees -- as a refusal by the Obama Administration to outline an endgame: "(I)t was very clear the overarching policy has been frustrating mainly because I think it's not very clear. What we walked out of that meeting knowing is that the Administration was trying to defend itself." By the end, he said, there was a "sharp exchange between the Administration's representative there, our ambassador there, and Mr. Netanyahu, which was unusual to say the least, but I thought at the end of the day maybe productive."
Beckmann then asked: "Is it inaccurate to say it was a shouting match?" Rogers answered: "can say that there were elevated concerns on behalf of the Israelis." When asked if he had "ever seen that sort of thing before," Rogers answered: "No not that directly. We've had sharp exchanges with other heads of state and in intelligence services and other things, but nothing at that level that I've seen in all my time where people were clearly that agitated, clearly that worked up about a particular issue where there was a very sharp exchange."
Rogers went on to describe what he understands to be the Israeli frustration, and, apparently, his frustration, with the impact of sanctions: "Here's the problem. "...I support the sanctions. But if you're going to have a hammer you have to have an anvil. You have to have at least a credible threat of a military option. So it's having an effect, yes, it's having an effect on the Iranian economy. It is not impacting their race on enrichment and other things, and that's very very clear." He went on, "I think the Israeli position is, 'Hey, listen, you've got to tell us -- I mean, if you want us to wait' -- and that's what this Administration's been saying, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wait, you've gotta wai -- got that -- 'but then you've gotta tell us when is the red line so we can make our own decisions about should we or shouldn't we stop this particular program."
And Rogers had harsh words for the Administration, which he says has made it very clear to the Israelis what they shouldn't do, but hasn't delivered a message to the Iranians with the same clarity: "There's a lot of pieces in play on this. But I think again, their frustration is that the Administration hasn't made it very clea -- they've made it very clear to Israel in a public way that they shouldn't do it, but haven't made it very clear to Iran in a public way that there will be tougher action, which could include -- and I argue peace through strength, so you just need to let them understand that that's an option so we can deter them from their program. And right now the Israelis don't' believe that the Administration is serious when they say that all options are on the table, and more importantly neither do the Iranians. That's why the program is progressing."
I'll post more of this interview as it is transcribed, in a few minutes, in this space.
PART II: When asked by Beckmann at what he believes the Israelis willl say "enough is enough," Rogers answered: "Certainly when you walk out of that meeting you get the feeling that they are finally at wits' end, and that's what concerned me about the meeting."
He went on, "I will say that as a part of their decision point or data point when they go through the process of should we or shouldn't we, it was clear that our American elections have worked its way into one of those data points. I thought, well, maybe that hedges their response until maybe after the election. But what I got out of that, walking out of that, wa,s yeah they're considering it, but at this point they're very frustrated because they don't' know what happens after the election, and their window for impacting the program they believe is starting to close."
Rogers also said that what he calls Obama's uncertainty has caused problems for the U.S. across the Middle East. "You know, it's a very interesting argument when you're in the room and talking about options.The meeting was designed, it was supposed to be between Netanyahu and myself on some intelligence cooperation matters and other matters, when it came to Iran and Syria and other things, and kind of devolved into this meeting where the ambassador was confronted directly... what was very apparent to me was a lot of frustration with the lack of clarity and the uncertainty about what their position is on the Iranian nuclear program. And that's what I think I saw across the Middle East. The uncertainty about where the United States' position is on those questions has created lots of problems and anxiety that I think doesn't serve the world well and doesn't serve peace well."
Rogers spoke, as well, about the Iranian nuclear timeline: "So the big question is the dash. And the dash is, we know they have an enrichment program, it's highly likely they have a weaponization program. You have to have both of those parts for a nuclear weapon program. And the dash is when does weaponization mean you can put it on a missile and fire it off?
The Israelis are upset because that dash question seems to be shortening and they already believe they have enough enrichment for more than one nuclear bomb. That's why their anxiety is high and the United States position isn't all that clear." Beckmann then asked Rogers how close the Israelis believe that dash period to be. Rogers: "The Israelis believe it's short. I mean, Netanyahu made it very clear he thought it was a matter of weeks. If they decide to do the dash it could be four weeks to eight weeks, which is a month or two months. Our intelligence analysts believe it would be a little longer than that. But the problem is, nobody really knows for sure. But we do know, and I think everyone agrees, including, you know, our European intelligence allies and other things that they are clearly marching down this road."
(Thanks to Armin Rosen for transcribing the radio interview)
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/intelligence-committee-chair-describes-explosive-confrontation-between-netanyahu-and-american-ambassador/262056/
Source: Mets loss falls to $23M, but no help to payroll
By JOSH KOSMAN
Last Updated: 6:05 AM, September 6, 2012
Posted: 12:04 AM, September 6, 2012
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/red_ink_shrinkin_oSduO3mleUFk4leJwx8MAO#ixzz25h7wGkNI
The Mets are expected to cut their 2012 season loss by two-thirds from last year, to roughly $23 million — in line with expectations but not enough to support anything but a modest uptick in payroll in 2013, The Post has learned.
The loss could continue to shrink next year, according to one source close to the situation, who estimated the red ink may drop to about $15 million.
“They are pretty near their [pre-season] expectations,” the source said.
But even with the losses at that level, cash-strapped owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz appear to have just over $21 million in free cash — from their profitable SportsNet New York cable operation — to sink into the club, the source said.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/red_ink_shrinkin_oSduO3mleUFk4leJwx8MAO#ixzz25h7zd3Ed
That would suggest, unless SNY profits soar, that the expected $8 million decline in 2013’s projected loss would give the Mets just that much more money to add to payroll.
The Mets cut their 2012 budget by $50 million from 2011, to about $100 million.
Fans, who are suffering through the team’s sixth straight season of missing the playoffs — and, perhaps, the Mets’ fourth straight season with a losing record — had hoped an increased payroll would help keep All-Star David Wright, plus add some bona fide stars.
The money might not be there.
“There will be room to make gradual increases in payroll, but nothing dramatic,” the source said.
To be sure, the days of the Mets’ financial emergency are over. The team has repaid some of its loans and is on firmer financial footing, the source said.
In large part, that’s due to the profitable SNY operation, which had profits of nearly $100 million in 2011.
Wilpon and his partners own 65 percent of SNY — meaning their share is about $65 million.
Wilpon’s Queens Baseball Corp., meanwhile, owes $43.5 million annually for Citi Field — which comes out of SNY profits.
That leaves $21.5 million, slightly less than this year’s expected losses.
Next year, if losses are reduced to about $15 million, that would leave a $6.5 million surplus.
However, attendance is down 3.6 percent from last year, has dropped every year the team has been at Citi Field and could drop again in 2013.
Mets GM Sandy Alderson told The Post last month that he expects David Wright and R.A. Dickey to sign long-term contracts with the team this winter.
“This year we’re at $100 million, but I’m hopeful we’ll be in the same range if not somewhat higher,” Alderson said, adding he hasn’t discussed the subject with principal owner Wilpon.
The Mets declined comment on its finances.
The team last March sold minority stakes for $240 million — which went, in part, to repay $65 million in loans, $110 million to help refinance bank debt and $43.5 million to the city for stadium debt.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/red_ink_shrinkin_oSduO3mleUFk4leJwx8MAO#ixzz25h85EUOW
mj is gonna make me look good z ...... ..... but kevin smith is playing for me this week ........ i think!
you aint the only one
From the U.S. Navy’s Media Content Service:
USS Constitution Sails for First Time since 1997
Story by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kathryn E. Macdonald, USS Constitution Public Affairs
CHARLESTOWN, Mass. (NNS) — USS Constitution departed her berth from Charlestown, Mass. Aug. 19, to set sail for the first time since 1997, during an underway demonstration commemorating Guerriere Day.
The underway honored the 200th anniversary of Constitution‘s decisive victory over the HMS Guerriere during the War of 1812, marking the first time a United States frigate defeated a Royal Navy frigate at or nearly equal size. It’s also the battle in which Constitution earned her famous nickname "Old Ironsides."
"I cannot think of a better way to honor those who fought in the war as well as celebrate Constitution‘s successes during the War of 1812 than for the ship to be under sail," said Cmdr. Matt Bonner, Constitution‘s 72nd commanding officer. "The event also ties our past and present by having the ship not only crewed by the outstanding young men and women who make up her crew, but also the 150 chief petty officer [CPO] selectees who join us for their Heritage Week."
More than 150 CPO selectees and CPO mentor chiefs assisted Constitution‘s crew in setting sails. CPO selectees participated in Constitution‘s annual CPO Heritage Weeks, a weeklong training cycle divided by two weeks that teaches selectees time-honored maritime evolutions, such as gun drills, line handling and setting sails. The training is also designed to instill pride in naval heritage in the Navy’s senior enlisted leadership.
"I’m a boatswain’s mate," said Chief (Select) Boatswain’s Mate (SW) Michael Zgoda, assigned to USS Ingraham (FFG 61). "This is the foundation of my rate. Being able to learn from a variety of genuine chiefs and their different perspectives on leadership is overwhelming and important to the chief petty officer transition. I’m extremely honored to be a part of the group that can say they sailed the USS Constitution."
The ship got underway at 9:57 a.m. with tugs attached to her sides and 285 people on board, including special guests, such as the 58th, 59th, 62nd and 65th former commanding officers of Constitution; Rear Adm. Richard Breckenridge, Commander, Submarine Group Two; Rear Adm. Ted Branch, Commander, Naval Air Forces Atlantic; Vice Adm. William French, Commander, Navy Installations Command; retired Navy Capt. Thomas Hudner Jr., Medal of Honor recipient; and Dr. Phil Budden, Britain’s Consul General to New England.
At 10:27 a.m., Budden and Bonner tossed a wreath into the ocean to honor and remember Constitution‘s battle with the HMS Guerriere.
When the ship arrived at President Roads, a body of water of Boston Harbor, the crew then set three sails from Constitution‘s main, mizzen and fore masts, and at 12:25 p.m., she detached from her tugs and sailed west under her own power for 17 minutes. She sailed at a maximum speed of 3.1 knots, at an average of two knots, and at a distance of 1,100 yards.
"As the ship’s sail master, I felt a combination of pride and relief that the hundreds of man hours of training and planning over the past year all came together, and we were able to accomplish this goal," said Boatswain’s Mate 1st Class (SW) Conrad Hunt. "I’m really proud that I can say I was a part of this historic occasion."
After tugs reattached to Constitution‘s sides, the ship headed to Fort Independence on Castle Island, where thousands of spectators waited to watch Constitution fire a 21-gun salute toward the fort at 1:14 p.m. Fort Independence is a state park that served as a defense post for Boston Harbor at one time.
Finally, the ship returned to her pier at 2:05 p.m. and everyone departed once the brow was safely set and the ship was clean. Constitution re-opened to the public for tours of the ship’s history at 4 p.m.
"For me, this underway is representative of an incredible amount of work and dedication by not only the crew, but Maintenance and Repair Facility, Naval History and Heritage Command, and all of the partners coming together to make this happen," said Aircrew Survival Equipmentman 1st Class (AW/SW) Jason Keith, who is the longest-serving crew member currently assigned to Constitution. Keith reported to the ship April 13, 2009 and will depart Aug. 31. "I’ve given tours to thousands of people, shined brass for hundreds of hours, and I’ve climbed the rigging to set and furl these sails over and over again. But sailing USS Constitution on Aug. 19, 2012 is one of the greatest honors I’ve had in my naval career, and I’m truly proud to be a part of this history."
The last time Constitution sailed under her own power was July 21, 1997 to honor the ship’s 200th birthday. It was the first time the ship sailed in 116 years.
"When we sailed the ship, it became clear it was a different experience you can’t have in port," said Lance Beebe, a crew member aboard Constitution‘s 1997 sail. "The ship comes alive, and you truly understand what she is all about. This new crew [2012 Sailors] just joined a group of crew members [1997 Sailors] that also got to experience Constitution under sail, and they became a significant part of her history as a result."
Constitution is the world’s oldest commissioned warship afloat and welcomes more than 500,000 visitors per year. She defended the sea lanes against threat from 1797 to 1855, much like the mission of today’s Navy. America’s Navy: Keeping the sea free for more than 200 years.
Constitution‘s mission today is to offer community outreach and education about the ship’s history.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/uss-constitution-sails-again.htm
IF YOGI BERRA WAS A DETECTIVE
The following statements, taken from DD5s, could easily have been written by Yogi Berra if he was a detective.
?They were living domesticatally.
They?re habitating at ?
Seeking the location of his whereabouts?
He was of Jamaican assessment.
Seeking to identify his identification.
Identified a pattern of unrelated incidents.
Was wearing a multi-colored white tee shirt
Known to congregate by himself.
The eyewitness is blind and did not see anything.
They went into a feet pursuit.
He has numerical arrests on his rap sheet.
The bus driver was working off duty at the time.
The information was received from an anonymous CI.
His sister states that she is not related to her brother.
The suspicious package was examined and determined to be not suspicious.
The unarmed security guard fired two shots at the perp.
All the calls that day happened another day.
Also, does anyone know when the word ?conversating? became a recognized word in the English language?
thanks k, life is good and busy.....they played pretty good and can hold their heads high.
perv state? ..... gonna be interesting to say the least
greetings and salutations !
Russia to develop sea-based space-defense system
Russia is developing a sea-based missile- and space-defense system, which will be deployed in international waters. The system is expected to become an integral part of the Russian Navy.
The construction of the new sea-based missile-defense system has been entrusted to Almaz-Antey, the arms manufacturer that also produces the S-400 ‘Triumph’ missile defense system.
Anatoly Shlemov, the head of national defense orders for Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation, told RIA Novosti that “this task has been definitely set for the [Russian] military-industrial complex.”
Almaz-Antey is not working alone on the planned system, Shelmov said, without specifying additional details about the top-secret project.
At the St. Petersburg Economic Forum earlier this year, President Roman Trotsenko of the United Shipbuilding Corporation announced that the USC would begin construction in 2016 of a series of six nuclear-powered destroyers armed with high-tech missile- and space- defense system.
Trotsenko called the warships “benchmarks of Russian space defense in the World Ocean,” but refused to comment further on the plans.
As it begins introducing the new S-400 system, Almaz-Antey is also finishing its S-500 ‘Prometheus’ system, which features space-defense capabilities. The S-500 is expected to be deployed in 2017, and will most likely arm the destroyers in project.
Previously, Almaz-Antey created the S-300 system for naval use, developing the S-300 Fort F and Fort FM for the Russian Navy.
The S-500 will supposedly able to engage targets in low earth orbit flying at speeds of up to 7 kilometer per second – the highest speed achievable by a ballistic missile at its highest trajectory in space.
The S-500’s capabilities are expected to exceed those of the US Aegis Combat System, but a point-by-point comparison is impossible until the S-500 is completed.
The backbone of the Aegis Combat System – the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) – is a closely guarded secret, though the Missile Defense Agency of the US Department of Defense once published information revealing that the SM-3 can intercept targets flying at a speed of 3.7 kilometers per second.
The latest versions of the S-300 can engage targets flying at speeds of up to 2.8 kilometer per second; the S-400 can intercept targets at 4.8 kilometer per second.
A warship equipped with Aegis Combat System has a 190-kilometer range, and can intercept targets in low earth orbit up to 180 kilometers and detect objects at distances of up to 320 kilometers.
The S-400 can hit air targets at distances of up to 400 kilometers, while detecting them from as far away as 600 kilometers.
The Aegis Combat System is currently used by the US, Australian, Japanese, Norwegian, South Korean and Spanish navies.
http://rt.com/news/russian-space-defense-ocean-053/
Top US general blasts ex-officers for attacking Obama
US military chief General Martin Dempsey denounced ex-officers Tuesday for waging a campaign against President Barack Obama, arguing that soldiers had a duty to stay above the political fray.
Wading into a potential minefield during a hotly contested White House race, Dempsey voiced his disapproval of a group of retired military members and CIA officers who have accused Obama of spilling sensitive national security details to help secure his re-election in November.
Asked if the group's criticism was valid or useful, Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he would not comment on the substance of their allegations.
But he added: "As to the latter, is it useful? No, it's not useful. It's not useful to me."
The military had a unique role that required political neutrality, said Dempsey, who spoke to reporters aboard his plane en route to the United States after visiting Afghanistan and Iraq.
"And one of the things that marks us as a profession in a democracy, in our form of democracy, that's most important is that we remain apolitical.
"That's how we maintain our bond and trust with the American people," the general said.
The group of ex-Navy SEALs and other retired officers who have blasted Obama, dubbed OPSEC for "operational security," insist they are not a partisan organization but have genuine concerns about national security leaks.
In videos aired this month, the group said the Obama administration endangered the United States and the safety of troops by allegedly disclosing secrets about operations, including the American raid last year that killed Osama bin Laden.
But Dempsey said those who serve or used to serve in uniform bear a special responsibility.
"The American people don't want us to be another special interest group. I mean they just don't want that. In fact, I think it confuses them," he said.
Dempsey acknowledged that the OPSEC group featured retired officers, but he said he believed the duty to stay out of party politics still applied.
"I know that these individuals to which you're referring are ex-military," he said.
"The problem is that when you use the military, I'm not speaking about them individually or specifically now, but if someone uses the uniform -- whatever uniform -- for partisan politics, I'm disappointed by that.
"Because I think it does erode that bond of trust we have with the American people."
Although the four-star general stressed the importance of a non-partisan military force, he will almost certainly be accused by some Republicans of taking sides in the presidential contest.
In the 2008 election campaign, Obama's team touted support from retired military officers while both parties in recent years have traded accusations of trying to exploit service members for political gain.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Top_US_general_blasts_ex-officers_for_attacking_Obama_999.html
Is Israel planning EMP attack on Iran?
Tehran nearing 'zone of immunity' against conventional assault on nuclear sites
WASHINGTON – Analysts say because Israel now believes diplomacy has failed to halt Iran’s nuclear program and the Jewish state’s very survival is at stake, Israelis have not ruled out a Jericho III missile launch to detonate a single electromagnetic pulse warhead at high altitude over central Iran.
The assessment is underscored by recent comments from Israeli officials that the Islamic republic is reaching its “zone of immunity” from conventional military attack on its nuclear sites.
In addition, analysts point out the use of long-range aircraft with refueling capability would be highly complex and pose many logistical problems. Israel also probably would not be allowed overflight permission from Turkey, Iraq or Saudi Arabia to reach its Iranian targets. Further, such an approach would minimize any element of surprise.
Meanwhile, top religious and political officials in Iran have issued repeated warnings they plan to obliterate the Jewish state.
Israel has made an assessment that Iran is on the threshold of a breakthrough to make a nuclear weapon. However, some national security experts, including some in the United States, believe Iran is several years away from making such a device. And they say actual weaponization – the ability to miniaturize a nuclear bomb to fit on its nuclear-capable missiles – still is further off.
Debate over just how close Iran may be to making a nuclear weapon has raised the issue of the quality of the intelligence to back Israeli claims. Sources point to the example of the intelligence used to assess Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that prompted the U.S. to attack Iraq in March 2003.
With Iran continuing its enrichment program, however, Israel and some Western countries are concerned that the amount of low-level uranium it has enriched could be enriched further to some 90 percent purity – which is what is required to make nuclear weapons.
U.S. officials don’t assess that Iran has reached that point.
Given that Iranian sites may be hardened against a conventional military attack, several Israeli and foreign sources believe that Israel has a nuclear device to create an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, that would produce little radiation on the ground but could knock out all of Iran’s electronics.
Israel also is assessed to be able to launch nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles from its German-supplied Dolphin electric submarines that could carry a one-kiloton or more device and explode over Iran, effectively neutralizing all of Iran’s electronics.
This would include Iran’s command and control capabilities and its ability to launch ballistic missiles in retaliation to a pre-emptive Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, which Western intelligence has assessed is a cover to make nuclear weapons.
Sources say that an Israeli EMP attack also would effectively halt Iran’s ability to launch its forces to block the Strait of Hormuz, which the Islamic republic has threatened to do if it is attacked, along with targeting a number of U.S. military facilities in the region, as well as Israel.
An electromagnetic pulse occurs following a nuclear weapon exploded at a high altitude, creating a very strong electrical field that can overwhelm all electronics, knocking out or seriously damaging any electronic devices connected to power sources or antennas, including communications equipment, computers, electrical appliances, automobile and aircraft ignitions systems. Experts say it also can adversely affect a person’s implanted heart pacemaker device.
The effect from an EMP would be very similar to electronics in a near lightning strike or a solar storm which also can affect electronics but on a lesser scale than a pulse from a high-altitude nuclear explosion.
Another scenario discussed among some Israeli leaders is the detonation of an EMP over the entire Middle East, including Israel, whose military infrastructure has been hardened against such attacks. This would allow Israel to fly its jets directly to Iran without concerns about detection. Though it would also turn out the lights in Israel, sources there say the Jewish state could bring power back for civilians in a matter of days. A detonation at an altitude of up to 250 miles not only would affect all electronics in Iran but could damage electrical systems from the Middle East and much of Europe, these experts add. Such an EMP event also would dramatically affect all U.S. military facilities in the region.
An EMP attack on the United States, for example, from a 30-kiloton nuclear weapon exploded at an altitude of 62 miles, or 100 kilometers, effectively would knock out 70 percent of electrical systems up to a thousand miles in every direction. A similar explosion at a higher altitude of some 250 miles would virtually affect all electronics from Boston to Los Angeles and from Chicago to New Orleans, according to experts.
Consequently, a detonation limited to Iran would have to be at a much lower altitude to avoid such far-ranging effects on the electronics in the region and beyond.
According to U.S. intelligence sources, Israel not only possesses nuclear devices of one kiloton or more which would be sufficient to create an effective result from an electromagnetic pulse but has Jericho III missiles which it tested in 2009 capable of carrying nuclear payloads some 2,500 miles. The distance between Israel and Iran is approximately 1,000 miles.
U.S. sources knowledgeable about ways to “harden” buildings and other facilities against an EMP attack say business in this area has been booming throughout the Middle East for months.
In recent weeks, U.S. intelligence officials have told WND/G2Bulletin that they have detected Israel handling propellants for its Jericho missiles.
The prospect that Israel has this capability was first made known by an ex-CIA case officer, Chet Nagle, at a Capitol Hill EMPact America press conference held in Washington, D.C., in November 2011.
A similar prospect was outlined in a Nov. 10, 2011, Front Page Magazine article, “Connecting the Nuclear Dots on Iran,” written by Kenneth Timmerman who is the president of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran and maintains close ties with the Iranian opposition.
“Any Israeli attack on Iran is sure to make of Israel an international pariah, Nagle argues,” Timmerman said in quoting Nagle in a conversation. “Plus, the likelihood of success – that is, in destroying or disabling all of Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities (by conventional means) so they have nothing to launch on the morning after the attack – is low.
“If you’re going to go to all that trouble and be a pariah,” Timmerman quoted Nagel as saying in their conversation, “why not take one of those Jericho missiles, and detonate it 300 miles above the surface and deliver an EMP strike on Iran? That would stop their clock – if it’s electric – as well as all those centrifuges and everything else. Then the Greens can take over the country and we can go back in and rebuild the grid.”
The prospect for this doomsday approach has arisen due to a comment made by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak last February that Iran was entering a “zone of immunity” from military attack. Other officials in recent days have suggested that such a “zone of immunity” will be reached before the end of the year.
“The world, including the current U.S. administration, understands and accepts that Israel necessarily views the threat differently than they do, and that ultimately, Israel is responsible for taking the decisions related to its future, its security and its destiny,” Barak said.
Given that this “zone of immunity” could be reached before the end of the year, there has been increasing speculation in recent days that Israel may launch an attack prior to the U.S. presidential elections in an effort to force the U.S. to act. Sources say that the Israelis have assessed that if President Obama is re-elected, he may want to continue down the path of negotiating with the Iranians.
The sources add that by attacking prior to the U.S. elections in November, the U.S. then will have no choice but to back Israel due to the U.S. commitment to ensure Israel’s security. They add that it also will help Obama’s re-election efforts.
Iran, however, insists that its nuclear development program is for peaceful purposes as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under the terms of the NPT, Iran has the “right” to enrich uranium as it is doing. Iran has enriched up to 20 percent, which is more than enough for refueling its nuclear reactors but is considered an acceptable level for medical research.
As early as 2005, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa, or religious decree, that is a legal pronouncement in Islam, that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic republic “shall never acquire these weapons.” Last February, Khamenei reiterated his 2005 fatwa.
“The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons,” he said. “There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”
Sources say that the edict from Khamenei is considered more than a fatwa, given that he not only is an ayatollah but also the supreme leader of Iran. For that reason, what he said is considered a hukm, or decree of the Supreme Jurisprudent, or Vali-yi Faqih, that determines the legal framework of the Islamic republic in accordance with Islamic law.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/is-israel-planning-emp-attack-on-iran/
Iran begins construction of $300 million anti-aircraft missile base
New facility near the city of Abadeh will host 7 battalions, says senior commander
By Ron Friedman and APAugust 21, 2012, 10:31 pm11
mid increasing talk of a possible Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities, Iran has begun construction of a new, state-of-the-art, anti-aircraft missile base.
The new base, located near the city of Abadeh, in southern Iran, will cost $300 million, be home to 6,000 personnel, and host seven battalions, Iran’s Fars news agency reported Tuesday.
The Deputy Commander of the Khatam ol-Anbia Air Defense Base, Mohammad Hosseini, said the base, the largest of its kind in Iran, will also include one of the most important military training centers in the country.
Last month, a senior Iranian air defense commander asserted that all Iranian air defense units and systems are fully prepared to repel possible enemy air raids.
Also on Tuesday, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled an upgraded version of a short-range surface-to-surface ballistic missile just weeks after it was test-fired, Iranian state media reported.
At the ceremony unveiling the Fateh-110, or Conqueror, Ahmadinejad told a group of defense officials that Iran wants to advance its defense technology “not in an aggressive context, but as a deterrence.”
“We do not seek it for conquest, domination of neighboring countries and the world. We do not want it because of defiance,” said Ahmadinejad, according to state TV.
Iran considers both the United States and Israel as potential adversaries. Neither country has ruled out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, which they claim is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes.
The official IRNA news agency reported Tuesday that the new version of Fateh-110 has a quicker launch capability, a longer life and can be used in adverse weather conditions, but gave no other details. The missile has been in service in Iran over the past decade.
Iran claimed earlier in August that it successfully test-fired the missile, saying at the time that Fateh-110 has an improved accuracy to strike land and naval targets within a 300 kilometer (185 mile) range.
Since 1992, Iran has tried to set up a self-sufficient military program. The country’s military leaders have said they believe future wars will take place in the air and on sea, and Tehran has sought to upgrade its air defense systems and naval power in anticipation of such a possibility.
Iran has also been pushing to upgrade its missiles, which already can target Israel and US bases in the Middle East. The Pentagon released a report in June noting significant advances in Iranian missile technology, acknowledging that the Islamic Republic has improved the accuracy and firing capabilities of its missiles.
Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi said Iran will commission a new generation of fighter jets, missiles, unmanned drones and submarines by the Iranian New Year, which falls in March 2013.
Iran’s purported military advancements are impossible to independently verify because the country does not release technical details of its arsenals or rely on equipment from major international defense contractors.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-begins-construction-of-300-million-anti-aircraft-missile-base/
Russia warns West on Syria after Obama threats
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the West on Tuesday against any unilateral action on Syria after President Barack Obama said U.S. forces could act if the Syrian leader deployed chemical weapons against rebels trying to topple him.
Russia and China have opposed military intervention in Syria throughout 17 months of bloodshed and have vetoed three U.N. Security Council resolutions backed by Western and Arab states that would have raised pressure on Damascus to end violence.
Lavrov spoke at a meeting with China's top diplomat one day after Obama, in some of his strongest language yet, said U.S. forces could move against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad if he resorted to chemical weapons against insurgents.
Russia and China base their diplomatic cooperation on "the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law and the principles contained in the U.N. Charter, and not to allow their violation", Lavrov said at a meeting with Chinese State Councillor Dai Bingguo.
"I think this is the only correct path in today's conditions," Lavrov told Dai, who also met President Vladimir Putin and his top security adviser, Nikolai Patrushev, on Monday for consultations went unannounced by the Kremlin.
Lavrov's remarks underscored Moscow's wish to keep international efforts to end Syria's crisis within the United Nations, where Russia and China wield clout as two of the five permanent Security Council members with veto power.
Frustrated by the vetoes and by the refusal of Russia and China to join calls for Assad to leave power, the United States and other Western and Arab countries are seeking other ways to exert influence on the situation in Syria.
NO LIBYA REPEAT
Obama said on Monday he had refrained "at this point" from ordering military engagement in Syria. But when asked whether he might deploy forces, for example to secure Syrian chemical and biological weapons, he said his view could change.
Russia has also expressed concern about Syria chemical weapons, saying it had told Damascus that even the threat to use them was unacceptable.
But Lavrov said on Monday that the Security Council alone could authorize the use of external force against Syria, warning against imposing "democracy by bombs".
Russian leaders have said they are determined to avoid a repeat of what occurred in 2011 in Libya, when Moscow let NATO military operations go ahead by abstaining from Security Council resolution that authorized air operations.
Russian officials then accused the United States and its allies of overstepping their mandate and using it to help rebels overthrow longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi. Putin, prime minister then but now back in official charge of foreign policy, likened the U.N. resolution to "medieval calls for crusades".
Russia denies that it is propping up Assad and says it would accept his exit in a political transition decided by the Syrian people, but that his departure must not be a precondition and he must not be pushed out by external forces.
Putin, who has faced frequent U.S. and European criticism over his treatment of dissent, has made opposition to foreign intervention in sovereign states on human rights grounds a central plank of his foreign policy in his new presidency.
China has issued similar warnings to the West.
In remarks at the start of his otherwise private meeting with Dai and other officials, Lavrov said the opportunity to discuss coordination on global affairs was "very, very timely".
Dai, speaking through an interpreter, said he was in Russia for "consultations on strategic security" and had had a "very good, friendly and important meeting" with Putin.
A Syrian delegation led by Qadri Jamil, deputy prime minister for economic affairs, was also in Moscow on Tuesday and was expected to meet Foreign Ministry officials. It was Jamil's second visit this month.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/russia-china-warn-west-syria-064452353.html
did you order 1?
i'll take 2
Major Reshuffle of China’s Top Military Brass
Hu Jintao solidifies his future military power base
By Wang Jingwen
Epoch Times StaffCreated: August 16, 2012Last Updated: August 19, 2012
China’s military has quietly reassigned a large number of high-ranking officers and removed most of supporters of Bo Xilai—the now deposed official who was being groomed by the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) most ruthless faction to become the next Party leader—in two key regions. Within just one month, there have been 14 transfers of generals ranking at the level of Military Region.
According to several published reports collected by Southern Metropolis Daily, since July, China’s military has moved around a large number of senior generals, including generals in the Navy, Air Force, Lanzhou Military Region, Guangzhou Military Region, Chengdu Military Region, Hong Kong Garrison, General Logistics Department, and Armed Police. The South China Sea and North Sea Fleets have also changed their chief commanders. This is the largest reshuffle of top Chinese military officers since the June 4, 1989 Tiananmen Square student massacre.
The most notable adjustments have taken place in the Lanzhou and Chengdu Military Regions. Most generals supportive of Bo Xilai and former CCP leader Jiang Zemin have been removed from their positions since they were linked to an alleged coup plotted by Bo Xilai and Zhou Yongkang, both members of the Jiang Zemin faction. The three were united in a plan to seize power at the top of the Communist Party in order to cover for their crimes in persecuting Falun Gong, a Chinese spiritual practice, according to insiders and the analysis of experts.
But according to a high ranking Beijing official, Hu Jintao, in order to remain as the Party’s Central Military Commission (CMC) chairman, and maintain some hold on power after handing over his Party leader post, doesn’t want to make too many enemies. Hu is using “soft treatment” in dealing with Bo and Zhou to leave their supporters “a way out” and to try to minimize the impact of the political tsunami brought on by the pair, the official told New Epoch magazine on condition of anonymity.
According to reports, the two vice-chairmen and the eight members of the CMC all signed a petition asking Hu to remain as chairman of the CMC. Obviously, Hu’s compromise has brought benefits to himself. Those high-ranking officials involved in the Bo and Zhou incident have already changed their stance, and Bo and Zhou have no influence now even though Zhou still remains in his current Party position.
Breaking up the PLAC
Recently an official message further confirmed Hu’s and Wen’s “outside loose and inside tight” policy towards Zhou. According to state media Xinhua News, from the beginning of August, provincial and autonomous regions’ police chief positions will be taken over by transferred officials from other provinces. This is another major initiative—following the June 26-July 31 intensive rotational training of police chiefs from more than 1,400 cities and counties—to weaken the impact of the Gestapo-like Political and Legislative Affairs Committee (PLAC), and to break up and reshuffle the PLAC.
Additionally, local Party committees were due for reelection in early July. There were 23 new provincial PLAC secretaries who were not local police chiefs; instead the positions were filled by officials without any PLAC background. Previously the PLAC secretary position was always held by the local police chief, and its authority often surpassed that of other law-enforcement agencies. The PLAC thus formed a second power center in China controlled by Jiang Zemin and Zhou Yongkang.
The intention of Hu’s series of actions is to weaken the second power center and second armed forces, and to avoid the renewed possibility of a coup.
Outcome of Reshuffle
1. In order to stabilize power, anyone who publicly declared loyalty to Hu Jintao, even though he had some minor connection to Bo, would have his future secured—at least for now. As long as he has cut ties with Bo, Hu uses the policy of “ignoring the past.” Of course, the purpose of this adjustment is to eliminate members of the Jiang faction, who were removed or at least not promoted this time.
2. Although Hu is to remain as chairman of the CMC, Xi Jinping will take the top post soon, and Hu has to promote Xi’s proposed personnel. Therefore, in this top military brass reshuffle, there has been a number of positive outcomes for Xi. The most obvious being the rise of the “princelings,” which is the privileged group of descendants of past CCP leaders, including Xi himself.
3. On the surface, Hu has trivialized the Bo Xilai scandal, reducing it from a planned political coup to a criminal case in order to safeguard the Party’s rule. But in fact, Hu has been vigorously eradicating the core elements connected to Zhou Yongkang. Changes, rotational training, and promotions within the PLAC and Armed Police are all about weakening Zhou Yongkang who represents the old forces of Jiang Zemin and Zeng Qinghong.
4. On the surface, the CCP can still maintain power for some time, and the 18th Party Congress may still be held as scheduled. But a discerning eye can see that the more the CCP shouts, “The Party has absolute leadership over the Armed Forces,” the more unstable the military is.
5. The CCP is reshuffling generals on such a large scale. It’s for protecting its own power and preventing the military from taking part in a political coup. But at the same time, the frequent relocation of army generals will also weaken the military’s fighting power.
6. From this round of reassignments, one can see that the CCP is putting hardliners in the South China Sea, thus there could be localized military conflicts there. But, the CCP doesn’t want to fight a major battle. The CCP’s national defense policy has been defensive in nature, because it knows that its military power really cannot match that of other major powers. Unless it uses atomic weapons as a last resort, China cannot win conventional weapons wars. In the South China Sea, they only talk big, but act little.
Related Articles
¦Chinese Military Officers Secretly Moving Money Offshore
Editor’s Note: When Chongqing’s former top cop, Wang Lijun, fled for his life to the U.S. Consulate in Chengdu on Feb. 6, he set in motion a political storm that has not subsided. The battle behind the scenes turns on what stance officials take toward the persecution of Falun Gong. The faction with bloody hands—the officials former CCP head Jiang Zemin promoted in order to carry out the persecution—is seeking to avoid accountability for their crimes and to continue the campaign. Other officials are refusing any longer to participate in the persecution. Events present a clear choice to the officials and citizens of China, as well as people around the world: either support or oppose the persecution of Falun Gong. History will record the choice each person makes.
Read the original Chinese article.
chinareports@epochtimes.com
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/major-reshuffle-of-chinas-top-military-brass-280557.html?popular
Red October redux? John Cornyn demands answers from Pentagon on Russian sub in Gulf of Mexico
This story hasn’t gotten much traction in the mainstream media, but Texas Sen. John Cornyn has been on it all week: Russian submarine activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
After receiving no satisfaction to earlier comments to the media, Cornyn wrote a letter today to Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Pentagon’s Chief of Naval Operations, demanding answers.
“The submarine patrol, taken together with the air incursions, seems to represent a more aggressive and destabilizing Russian military stance that could pose risks to our national security,” Cornyn wrote. “This is especially troubling given the drastic defense cuts sought by President Obama, which include reductions in funding for antisubmarine defense systems.”
The story has received relatively little attention since appearing in the conservative media outlet The Washington Free Beacon. According to the original report by longtime military correspondent Bill Gertz:
A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.
It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores.
The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.
Cornyn, a San Antonio Republican who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, says the report is “especially troubling given the drastic defense cuts sought by President Obama, which include reductions in funding for antisubmarine defense systems.”
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Lieutenant Commander John Fage, dismissed Gertz’s report.
“We are aware of the reporting but we see nothing to indicate that it is true,” Fage told the Houston Chronicle.
Here’s the complete text of Sen. Cornyn’s letter:
Dear Admiral Greenert:
According to press reports, a Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine recently traveled undetected in the Gulf of Mexico on a month-long patrol. This submarine activity reportedly occurred in June and July, simultaneously with incursions by Russian strategic bombers into restricted U.S. airspace.
If these reports are accurate, the repercussions are serious. It is my understanding that an Akula-class submarine can be armed with an array of weapons, including torpedoes and long-range cruise missiles, capable of destroying both U.S. nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.
The submarine patrol, taken together with the air incursions, seems to represent a more aggressive and destabilizing Russian military stance that could pose risks to our national security. This is especially troubling given the drastic defense cuts sought by President Obama, which include reductions in funding for antisubmarine defense systems.
In light of the gravity of this situation, I request a detailed explanation of the facts surrounding these reports. Thank you for your faithful service to our nation, your dedication to our Armed Forces, and your commitment to ensuring the welfare of our men and women in uniform and their families.
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/08/red-october-redux-john-cornyn-demands-answers-from-pentagon-on-russian-sub-in-gulf/
Kim warns troops to prepare for 'sacred war' during US-South Korea exercises
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 4:18 PM EDT, Sat August 18, 2012
CNN) -- North Korean leader Kim Jong Un told his troops to be vigilant during upcoming training exercises between South Korea and the United States, saying they should be ready to lead a "sacred war," state media reported Saturday.
Kim's comments came during a visit on Mu Island with troops who participated in the 2010 shelling of South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island, an attack that North Korea at the time said South Korea provoked by holding war games off their shared coast.
"He ordered the service persons of the detachment to be vigilant against every move of the enemy and not to miss their gold chance to deal at once deadly counter blows at the enemy, if even a single shell is dropped on the waters or in the area where the sovereignty of (North Korea) is exercised," the state-run KCNA news agency reported.
The warning followed an announcement by the United States and South Korea that their joint "Ulchi Freedom Guardian" training exercises would begin Monday and conclude by August 31.
North Korea was informed of the dates of the exercises by the U.N. armistice commission.
In June: North Korea slams use of its flag in U.S.-South Korea military drills
The Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission, which was established by the Korean Armistice Agreement that brought about an end to the Korean War, will supervise the exercise, South Korea and the United States military said in a joint statement. The commission includes representatives from Switzerland, China and other nations selected by the United Nations.
Washington and Pyongyang have no diplomatic relations. North and South Korea have no formal ties and remain technically in a state of war since a 1953 truce that ended the Korean War.
During the visit with troops, Kim observed Yeonpyeong Island "clearly visible from the post," KCNA reported.
The Yeonpyeong attack in November 2010 was the first direct artillery assault on South Korea by North Korea since 1953, when an armistice ending the fighting.
Two civilians and two South Korean marines died in the attack, which South Korea's government at the time called a "definite military provocation" by North Korea.
South Korea arrest activist after he visits North Korea
The sparsely populated Yeonpyeong is located just south of the Northern Limit Line, the line drawn in 1953 by the United Nations at the end of the Korean War. The United Nations drew the line three nautical miles from the North Korean coast and put five islands close to the coast under South Korean control.
That was supposed to be a temporary arrangement. But in the absence of a full peace agreement, the Northern Limit Line remains in place.
North Korea has been virtually isolated from the world by international sanctions over its development of a nuclear program.
North Korea threatens 'special actions' to take out South Korean government
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/18/world/asia/north-korea-warning/index.html
are you ready for some (fantasy) football!
George F. Will
Opinion Writer
A Golden State train wreck
Text Size Print E-mail Reprints
By George F. Will, Published: August 8The Washington Post
PALO ALTO, Calif.
State Sen. Joe Simitian’s district office near Stanford’s campus is nestled among shops sporting excruciatingly cute names (A Street Bike Named Desire,Mom’s the Word maternity wear) intended to make the progressive gentry comfortable with upscale consumption by presenting it as whimsical. This community surely has its share of advanced thinkers who think trains are wonderful because they are not cars (rampant individualism; people going wherever and whenever they want, unsupervised).
Nevertheless, Simitian was one of just four Democratic state senators who recently voted — in vain — to derail plans that eventually may involve spending more than $100 billion on a 500-mile bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Simitian makes the obligatory genuflection: He favors high-speed rail “done right.” But having passed sixth-grade arithmetic, he has doubts. At one point, an estimate of 44 million riders a year — subsequently revised downward, substantially — assumed gasoline costing $40 a gallon.
Democracy, said H.L. Mencken, is the theory that people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. In 2008, Californians passed an initiative authorizing $9.95 billion in bonds to build what they were told would be a $33 billion high-speed rail system. California, constantly lurching from one budget crisis to a worse one, could not nearly afford even that, and soon the price was re-estimated at about $100 billion. Not to worry, said Gov. Jerry Brown — the real price will be only $68.5 billion. Why? Partly because it will be less than bullet-like, not requiring extra-expensive roadbed.
Note Brown’s hilarious “.5.” Such is his precision that in May his projection of a $15.7 billion state budget deficit was 70 percent higher than his January estimate.
Eager to hook states on higher spending, especially for high-speed rail, the Obama administration wants California to quickly spend $3.3 billion of federal funding (much of it borrowed from China, one source of President Obama’s train envy). Simitian says the $3.3 billion is about 5 percent of the cost “if the project stays on budget.” If. The $3.3 billion and $2.7 billion of state money would finance 130 miles of track in the Central Valley — a train from, and to, nowhere.
Simitian notes that the 130 miles would not be high-speed rail and would not be electrified, and that there are no commitments for more federal funds, or for any dedicated funding source, or for private funding. And the 2008 ballot measure that launched this folly forbids tax money for operating subsidies.
California’s voters evidently understand that Washington’s $3.3 billion is spending for the purpose of committing Sacramento to much greater spending: Polls show that 59 percent would now reject the project they authorized. But Democrats will not allow reconsideration. They like direct democracy but love spending.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) rejected $810 million in federal money for a 78-mile high-speed rail project paralleling Interstate 94 between Milwaukee and Madison. Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) rejected $400 million for a high-speed (well, about automobile speed) train paralleling Interstate 71 between Cleveland and Cincinnati. Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) rejected $2.4 billion for 90 miles of high-speed rail paralleling Interstate 4 between Tampa and Orlando. In faith-based transportation policy, rail worshipers think people will park their cars in Tampa and then rent cars in Orlando.
Brown’s reverence for his rail bauble is fanaticism. Or perhaps filial piety: His father, governor from 1959 to 1967, built much of the freeway and water infrastructure for postwar California. When the son was first elected governor 38 years ago, he seemed exotic; now he embodies progressivism’s banality. Then he wanted a California space program; now he is fixated on railroads, a 19th-century technology. His prescription for California’s ailments is higher taxes and expensive trains. Fortunately, the latter obsession may stymie the former.
Come November, Californians will vote on Brown’s recipe for reviving this slow-growth, high-tax state: Raise income taxes “temporarily” on the rich and on everybody with a “temporary” sales tax increase. But with public services being slashed — some communities have lopped a week off the school year, with other contractions perhaps still to come — voters may reject more revenue for Sacramento while it is showering scores of billions on trains.
The 21st century may end before Brown’s sort-of-high-speed rail service begins. Coagulated California is so clotted with environmental regulations and lawyers that turning a spade of earth — Spare that endangered toad! — invites decades of litigation. Regarding high-speed rail, this is the good news.
georgewill@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-a-golden-state-train-wreck/2012/08/08/c469d642-e0ae-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_story.html
congrats, long time coming lol
Is Saudi Arabia on the edge?
By David Ignatius,
By appointing Prince Bandar bin Sultan as its new intelligence chief, Saudi Arabia has installed what looks like a war cabinet at a time of rising tensions with Iran and growing internal dissent from its Shiite minority.
The Saudis have also heightened their alert level in other ways to prepare for possible regional conflict. Some Saudi military and security personnel were mobilized last month — called back from summer leave or told to cancel planned vacations. One explanation of the mobilization making the rounds in Riyadh is that the Saudis expected that Turkey might retaliate against Syria for the shoot-down of one of its fighters in late June.
The installation of a new intelligence chief came as Saudi Arabia was stepping up its support for insurgents in Syria seeking to topple the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. In this covert effort, the Saudis are working with the United States, France, Turkey, Jordan and other nations that want Assad out.
Bandar will succeed Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz, who was barely visible in the West during his years as Saudi intelligence chief. This led to widespread comment that Muqrin had been fired, but he is said to retain the confidence of King Abdullah, who will use him as a special emissary to Pakistan and other Muslim nations where Muqrin’s traditional Saudi demeanor will be useful.
Bandar, the flamboyant former ambassador to Washington, had appeared to be sidelined in the past several years because of poor health and personal issues. His appointment now as intelligence chief probably signals the desire of both King Abdullah and the new Crown Prince Salman to have an experienced covert operator to handle sensitive foreign contacts at a time of sharply rising tensions.
Bandar would be a useful intermediary, for example, if Saudi Arabia sought nuclear weapons or ballistic missile technology from China to defend against such threats from Iran. Bandar was the go-between in a secret 1987 missile deal with China, known as “East Wind.” Bandar has also been active in secret missions with Syria and Lebanon for decades, and the Wall Street Journal reported that he helped arrange a recent visit to Saudi Arabia by Gen. Manaf Tlass, the highest-ranking Syrian defector.
Bandar is especially well-placed to manage intelligence liaison with the United States, given his two decades here as ambassador. Bandar maintained close relations with the CIA during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, and was said to have helped organize secret funding for joint Saudi-American covert actions in the Middle East. During the run-up to the 1991 Gulf War, Bandar was so close to President George H.W. Bush that he became known as “Bandar Bush,” a moniker that continued under President George W. Bush.
Bandar continued to play a behind-the scenes role even after he left Washington in 2005. He was said, for example, to support Vice President Dick Cheney’s confrontational policy against Iran, to the consternation of Prince Turki al-Faisal, his successor as ambassador, who was working with less hawkish members of the Bush administration.
Interestingly, Bandar has been a special target for Iranian media attacks in recent days. Iran’s Press TV on Aug. 2 described him as “the linchpin in the ‘dastardly subterfuges’ of the CIA and Mossad against Syria.” Press TV also carried an uncorroborated report early last week claiming that Bandar had been assassinated; the rumor was rebutted Friday by a source who said that Bandar had been in telephone contact with non-Saudis.
At home, the Saudis have been struggling to contain Shiite protests in Al-Qatif, in the kingdom’s oil-rich eastern province. Those protests, which the Saudis believe are Iran-inspired, led to two deaths in early July, according to a July 9 BBC report. The demonstrations continued last week and there were reports of more casualties.
The Saudis haven’t been able to stop the insurgency in Al-Qatif; indeed, it appears to be worsening. The protesters may hope to provoke the Saudis into a bloody crackdown, which would leave scores dead and encourage much wider demonstrations and international outcry. So far, the Saudis have avoided such an escalation through relatively restrained tactics. Saudi reformers argue that the best way to quell Shiite protests is to give them the full economic and political rights of citizenship.
Iran’s Press TV on July 27 featured an interview with an analyst headlined: “Collapse of al-Saud regime becomes more realistic than before.” The information may have been Tehran’s propaganda, but it helps explain why the Saudi monarchy is going to battle stations.
davidignatius@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-is-saudi-arabia-on-the-edge/2012/08/05/6758c1e0-dd91-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html
Is Saudi Arabia on the edge?
By David Ignatius,
By appointing Prince Bandar bin Sultan as its new intelligence chief, Saudi Arabia has installed what looks like a war cabinet at a time of rising tensions with Iran and growing internal dissent from its Shiite minority.
The Saudis have also heightened their alert level in other ways to prepare for possible regional conflict. Some Saudi military and security personnel were mobilized last month — called back from summer leave or told to cancel planned vacations. One explanation of the mobilization making the rounds in Riyadh is that the Saudis expected that Turkey might retaliate against Syria for the shoot-down of one of its fighters in late June.
The installation of a new intelligence chief came as Saudi Arabia was stepping up its support for insurgents in Syria seeking to topple the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. In this covert effort, the Saudis are working with the United States, France, Turkey, Jordan and other nations that want Assad out.
Bandar will succeed Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz, who was barely visible in the West during his years as Saudi intelligence chief. This led to widespread comment that Muqrin had been fired, but he is said to retain the confidence of King Abdullah, who will use him as a special emissary to Pakistan and other Muslim nations where Muqrin’s traditional Saudi demeanor will be useful.
Bandar, the flamboyant former ambassador to Washington, had appeared to be sidelined in the past several years because of poor health and personal issues. His appointment now as intelligence chief probably signals the desire of both King Abdullah and the new Crown Prince Salman to have an experienced covert operator to handle sensitive foreign contacts at a time of sharply rising tensions.
Bandar would be a useful intermediary, for example, if Saudi Arabia sought nuclear weapons or ballistic missile technology from China to defend against such threats from Iran. Bandar was the go-between in a secret 1987 missile deal with China, known as “East Wind.” Bandar has also been active in secret missions with Syria and Lebanon for decades, and the Wall Street Journal reported that he helped arrange a recent visit to Saudi Arabia by Gen. Manaf Tlass, the highest-ranking Syrian defector.
Bandar is especially well-placed to manage intelligence liaison with the United States, given his two decades here as ambassador. Bandar maintained close relations with the CIA during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, and was said to have helped organize secret funding for joint Saudi-American covert actions in the Middle East. During the run-up to the 1991 Gulf War, Bandar was so close to President George H.W. Bush that he became known as “Bandar Bush,” a moniker that continued under President George W. Bush.
Bandar continued to play a behind-the scenes role even after he left Washington in 2005. He was said, for example, to support Vice President Dick Cheney’s confrontational policy against Iran, to the consternation of Prince Turki al-Faisal, his successor as ambassador, who was working with less hawkish members of the Bush administration.
Interestingly, Bandar has been a special target for Iranian media attacks in recent days. Iran’s Press TV on Aug. 2 described him as “the linchpin in the ‘dastardly subterfuges’ of the CIA and Mossad against Syria.” Press TV also carried an uncorroborated report early last week claiming that Bandar had been assassinated; the rumor was rebutted Friday by a source who said that Bandar had been in telephone contact with non-Saudis.
At home, the Saudis have been struggling to contain Shiite protests in Al-Qatif, in the kingdom’s oil-rich eastern province. Those protests, which the Saudis believe are Iran-inspired, led to two deaths in early July, according to a July 9 BBC report. The demonstrations continued last week and there were reports of more casualties.
The Saudis haven’t been able to stop the insurgency in Al-Qatif; indeed, it appears to be worsening. The protesters may hope to provoke the Saudis into a bloody crackdown, which would leave scores dead and encourage much wider demonstrations and international outcry. So far, the Saudis have avoided such an escalation through relatively restrained tactics. Saudi reformers argue that the best way to quell Shiite protests is to give them the full economic and political rights of citizenship.
Iran’s Press TV on July 27 featured an interview with an analyst headlined: “Collapse of al-Saud regime becomes more realistic than before.” The information may have been Tehran’s propaganda, but it helps explain why the Saudi monarchy is going to battle stations.
davidignatius@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-is-saudi-arabia-on-the-edge/2012/08/05/6758c1e0-dd91-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html
No more Mittster nice guy!
It’s time to fight back against Dirty Harry
Don’t you wish Mitt Romney would take off the gloves?
OK, so he’s probably never even owned a pair of boxing gloves. But Willard can jump ugly — remember how he tore apart Turnpike hack Fat Matt Amorello after the falling tiles in the Ted Williams Tunnel killed a woman in 2006?
Mitt, Harry Reid is the Fat Matt Amorello of 2012.
Somebody has joked that these ludicrous attacks Reid is making on Romney and his tax returns are nothing more than Mormon-on-Mormon crime. And Mitt has responded, but with a chuckle, on a radio show. Mitt, this isn’t a there-he-goes-again moment. Dingy Harry is accusing you of a crime.
Of all the people in the world, U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Godfather II. Doesn’t he remind you of Sen. “Pat Geary,” the totally corrupt solon in the classic movie. Like the hypocritical Geary, Reid puts the blast on Romney for doing something he himself does — refusing to release his taxes.
Mitt, I know James Michael Curley said, “Never complain, never explain.” Generally speaking, he was right. But you’re running against the Outfit here, and there’s nothing they won’t do. Refresh yourself about Barack’s Senate election in Illinois and the suddenly released divorce records of both his Democrat and Republican foes. Recall the 2008 presidential campaign, and the abject lies Obama’s media rumpswabs knowingly peddled. Remember The New York Times [NYT]’ stories about John McCain’s mistress who wasn’t, or Todd Palin’s membership in the Alaska National Party, which likewise was totally false. How many piss-poor columns has Gail Collins written about Seamus the dog on the roof, but Barack Obama actually eating dogs ... crickets please.
Mitt, can’t you find some Republican as sleazy as Harry Reid to start making charges about Barry Soetoro. I mean, you’re running against the capo of the Choom Gang, a guy with multiple names, multiple birthplaces, somebody who gave up his law license for never-explained reasons, a guy with a Social Security number from a state he never lived in.
And you turn the other cheek? You should have given Rich Gorka a raise for ripping into those Barack bumkissers in Poland. Instead, you benched him.
There’s a memorable Mumbles Menino soundcut from a session ABC News once videotaped at City Hall. One of his aides is telling him he’s about to be attacked in a news story by anonymous sources. Mumbles says, just give the reporter a different source, denying the report.
Aide: Who do you want the source to be?
Mumbles: Give (them) ... Mary Shiddacake. Shiddacake.
Aide (baffled): Mary who?
Mumbles: Anybody. Make up the story. If they’re gonna go by “sources,” we’ll go by “sources.”
Need I remind you, Mitt, Mumbles is a Democrat. He’s a dolt, but he knows how to play the game. You don’t send Eric Fehrnstrom out there to paraphrase Joseph Welch’s 1954 retort to Joe McCarthy. How many dumbed-down, “Good Morning America”-watching, EBT card-carrying Obama voters even picked up on the reference?
I’m not saying you pull a Morton Downey Jr. on TV yourself. Long-term, anger doesn’t work on the boob tube. You don’t need the veins on your neck bulging out, like Granny Warren whenever anyone asks her if she’s found any proof yet of her Native American lineage.
Obama can get away with the ad hominem attacks — remember his comments about how physicians needlessly perform amputations to run up their patients’ bills? But he’s one of the Beautiful People and he’s ... well, he’s not a Mormon, let’s leave it at that.
This isn’t slapstick, like John Lakian calling you “Mr. Mormon” in the 1994 Senate primary debate. This is the presidency at stake here.
Where is Mary Shiddacake when you really need her?
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20220805no_more_mittster_nice_guy_its_time_to_fight_back_against_dirty_harry/srvc=home&position=0
Michael Tomasky on the (Possible) Coming Obama Landslide
Liberals don’t want to jinx it. It terrifies the right. And the press would prefer a nail-biter. But the fact is that finding Romney’s path to victory is getting harder every day.
by Michael Tomasky (/contributors/michael-tomasky.html) | August 4, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney addresses supporters as he campaigns during a town hall forum at the American Legion Post 109 on March 21, 2012 in Arbutus, Maryland. (Patrick Smith / Getty Images)
There’s a secret lurking behind everything you’re reading about the upcoming election, a secret that all political insiders know—or should—but few are talking about, most likely because it takes the drama out of the whole business. The secret is the electoral college, and the fact is that the more you look at it, the more you come to conclude that Mitt Romney (/articles/2012/08/03/romney-s-tax-plan-one-or-the-other.html) has to draw an inside straight like you’ve never ever seen in a movie to win this thing. This is especially true now that it seems as if Pennsylvania isn’t really up for grabs. Romney’s paths to 270 are few.
First, let’s discuss Pennsylvania. There has been good reason for Democrats to sweat this state. True, Obama won it handily in 2008, by 10 points. But it’s a state that is older and whiter and more working-class than most of America. Obama benefited from all the unique circumstances of 2008 that helped him across the country, but if ever there were a state where the “well, we gave the black guy a chance and he blew it” meme might catch on, it’s the Keystone State.
But the jobless rate there is 7.5 percent (http://www.bls.gov/lau/) , well below the national average (/articles/2012/08/03/jobs-numbers-good-for-obama.html) . Democratic voter registration has held its own. The Philly suburbs have grown. And this odious voter ID law is facing meaningful challenges. A hearing on the law’s validity has just been concluded. A state judge says he’ll rule on the law’s constitutionality the week of Aug. 13. It sounds as if the law’s opponents made a stronger case (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120803_Closing_arguments_in_hearing_on_Pennsylvania_voter_ID_law.html) at the hearing than its supporters. In any case, the losing side will appeal to the state Supreme Court.
But whatever happens with that law, Pennsylvania has been trending back toward Obama lately. He now holds a lead there of nearly seven points (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-pennsylvania-president-romney-vs-obama) , and he’s close to 50. And as I wrote the other day (/articles/2012/08/02/on-those-poll-numbers-from-yesterday.html) , Nate Silver now gives Barack Obama a slightly better chance of winning Montana than he does Romney of winning Pennsylvania. That tells you something.
The Democrats’ Pennsylvania sweat also had to do with its size—20 electoral votes, tied with Illinois for fifth biggest in the country. Democrats have been able to count on those votes for 20 years. Losing them would be a dagger right in the heart, a maybe irreparable sundering of the party’s electoral coalition. Imagine Republicans losing usually reliable Missouri (10 EV’s) and Arizona (11). Big ouch.
So if Pennsylvania is off the boards, let’s look around. Imagine it’s election night, say 10:45 east coast time. Four eastern states haven’t been called yet: Ohio (18), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), and Florida (29). Also, in some Western states, the polls haven’t closed, or the races are too tight to project just yet—Colorado and Nevada, say. Arizona has just been called for Romney. At this point, Romney actually leads, 188 to 182. In this scenario I’m assuming Obama has won Iowa (6), which is admittedly close but where his lead has been stable at three or four points, and New Hampshire (4), where Obama has a similar fairly small but stable lead, and Michigan (16), where the gap appears to be opening up a little.
So it’s a six-vote Romney edge. They’re feeling great up in Boston. Especially with the big Eastern four still up in the air. Right?
Not really. Let’s look at these West Coast states. Even though they’re still voting in California, obviously Obama is going to win it (55). And equally obviously, he’s going to win Washington (12) and Oregon (7), where neither side even bothered to spend a dime. Throw in Hawaii (4). Those 78 votes haul Obama up to 260. That’s something to keep in mind for election night: Whatever Obama’s number is at 10 pm Eastern, add those 78 EV’s—they’re a mortal lock, and a hefty insurance policy. If he wins Nevada (6) and Colorado (9), it’s over.
In other words, Obama can lose the big Eastern four—Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida: all of ’em!—and still be reelected.
And barring some huge cataclysm, he’s not losing all four of those states. If he wins even one—say Virginia, the smallest of the four—then Romney has to win Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire; all possible, certainly, but all states where he has been behind, narrowly but consistently, for weeks or months.
The list of states where Obama holds that narrow but consistent lead is long: Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Michigan and Wisconsin are no longer really narrow. Florida is more or less a dead heat. The bottom line is that of the dozen or so key swing states, Romney leads only in one: North Carolina. And that lead developed only over the summer. We’ll see whether the Democrats’ decision to convene in Charlotte has any impact on Romney’s three-point margin.
It’s beginning to look like Obama can lose the big Eastern four—Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida: all of ’em!—and still be reelected.
All this explains the interesting little chart (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/) toward the lower right-hand corner of Nate Silver’s home page, headed “Electoral Vote Distribution.” It rates the probability that Obama receives a certain number of electoral votes. Most outcomes, in a range running from 150 EV’s up to 400, rate around a 2 percent chance of Obama receiving that number. The highest spike on the chart? It’s at around 330 EV’s, which Silver reckons Obama has a 14 percent chance of hitting. Now, most political journalists would chuckle derisively at the idea that Obama is going to carry home 330 EV’s. Deride away. And while you do, bear in mind that Silver called 50 out of 51 states last time (counting D.C.; he missed only Indiana) and every single Senate race.
Sure, something big could happen to alter the dynamic completely. But we’ve watched these guys go, what, six or seven rounds now (out of 15). After seven rounds, you can pretty well tell some things. All the supposedly game-changing events of the last few weeks haven’t changed much of anything. This is a paradoxical situation that has little or no modern precedent, which makes it hard for people to accept. Liberals are too nervous to think it, reporters too intent on a “down to the wire” narrative, and conservatives too furious and disbelieving, but it’s shaping up to be true: An extremely close election that on election night itself stands a surprisingly good chance of being not that close at all.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/04/michael-tomasky-on-the-possible-coming-obama-landslide.html
Ron Paul: 'Audit the Fed' moves forward
Submitted by cpowell on Mon, 2012-07-30 15:59.
Section: Daily Dispatches
By U.S. Rep. Ron Paul
Monday, July 30, 2012
http://www.paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1997%3Aaudit-the-fed-moves-forward&catid=64%3A2012-texas-straight-talk&Itemid=1&Itemid=69
http://www.paul.house.gov/index.php
Last week the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed
my legislation calling for a full and effective audit of the
Federal Reserve.
Well over 300 of my congressional colleagues supported the
bill, each casting a landmark vote that marks the culmination
of decades of work.
We have taken a big step toward bringing transparency to the
most destructive financial institution in the world.
But in many ways our work is only beginning.
Despite the Senate Majority Leader's past support for similar
legislation, no vote has been scheduled on my bill this year
in the Senate.
And only 29 Senators have cosponsored Senator Rand Paul's
version of my bill in the other body:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:S.202:@@@P
If your senator is not listed at the link above,
please contact them and ask for their support.
We need to push Senate leadership to hold a vote this year.
Understand that last week's historic vote never would have taken
place without the efforts of millions of Americans like you,
ordinary citizens concerned about liberty and the integrity of
our currency.
Political elites respond to political pressure, pure and
simple.
They follow rather than lead.
If all 100 senators feel enough grassroots pressure, they will
respond and force Senate leadership to hold what will be a very
popular vote.
In fact, "Audit the Fed" is so popular that 75% of all
Americans support it according to this Rasmussen poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/july_2009/75_favor_auditing_the_fed/
We are making progress.
Of course Fed apologists -- including Mr. Bernanke -- frequently
insist that the Fed already is audited.
But this is true only in the sense that it produces annual
financial statements.
It provides the public with its balance sheet as a fait
accompli;
we see only the net results of its financial transactions
from the previous fiscal year in broad categories,
and only after the fact.
We're also told that the Dodd-Frank bill passed in 2010
mandates an audit.
But it provides for only a limited audit of certain Fed credit
facilities surrounding the crisis period of 2008.
It is backward-looking, which is of limited benefit.
The Fed also claims it wants to be "independent" from Congress
so that politics don't interfere with monetary policy.
This is absurd for two reasons.
First, the Fed already is inherently and unavoidably political.
It made a political decision when it chose not to rescue
Lehman Brothers in 2008, just as it made a political decision
to provide liquidity for AIG in the same time period.
These are just two obvious examples.
Also, Fed member banks and the Treasury Department are full of
former and future Goldman Sachs officials.
Are we really to believe that the interests of Goldman Sachs
have no effect on Fed decisions?
Clearly it's naive to think the Fed somehow is above political
or financial influence.
Second, it's important to remember that Congress created
the Fed by statute.
Congress therefore has the full, inherent authority to regulate
the Fed in any way -- up to and including abolishing it
altogether.
My bill provides for an ongoing, thorough audit of what
the Fed really does in secret, which is make decisions about
the money supply, interest rates, and bailouts of favored
banks, financial firms, and companies.
In other words, I want the Government Accountability Office to
examine the Fed's actual monetary policy operations and make
them public.
It is precisely this information that must be made public
because it so profoundly affects everyone who holds, saves, or
uses U.S. dollars.
If your senator is not listed at the link above,
please contact them and ask for their support.
We need to push Senate leadership to hold a vote this year.
We know every Rothschild/Hitler bankster pawn mafia cult
will call and say not to support but
its up to the PEOPLE
TO CALL if you want any
FREEDOM, LIBERTY & RIGHTS FOR THE
big surprise, eh
Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution
July 30, 2012
A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
The ruling came as part of a motion by the conservative legal watch dog group Judicial Watch, who had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents pertaining to the the New Black Panthers case. Judicial Watch had secured many previously unavailable documents through their suit against DOJ and were now suing for attorneys’ fees.
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.
…
In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.
The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.
“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/federal-court-finds-obama-appointees-interfered-with-new-black-panther-prosecution/article/2503500
US should not cross the line to intervene in maritime disputes
(People's Daily Online)15:01, July 30, 2012 Recently, the United States has intervened in maritime disputes of sovereignty between China and other related countries once again. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland made a fuss over China's establishment of Sansha City, saying the U.S. side remains concerned about China's "unilateral moves".
Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba recently surprisingly claimed that U.S. deployment of 12 Osprey transport aircraft in its military base in Okinawa is in line with U.S. strategic needs and Japan’s security requirements since "China plays an increasingly active role in the East China Sea".
Besides, Gemba clearly said that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “has confirmed” that the Japan-US Security Treaty is allocable for Diaoyu Islands dispute, which means that the United States and Japan will jointly deal with emergencies over the Diaoyu Islands when they happen. There will be another dangerous game launched by the United States to intervene in China's core interests if what Gemba said is true.
Although America has repeatedly claimed that it holds a neutral stance in the sovereignty disputes over the South China Sea, it has made a fuss over the establishment of Sansha, a normal move within China’s sovereignty and turned a blind eye to the provocative words and deeds of such countries as Vietnam and the Philippines.
The United States emphasizes that it is hoped that all the countries involved should respect the international law and other rules in maritime disputes of sovereignty, but it undisguisedly places the Japan-US Security Treaty above the international law, provides military support to Japan over the Diaoyu Islands dispute and send advanced military aircraft to Okinawa at the sensitive time when Japanese politicians stage the farce of buying the Diaoyu Islands. Its motives are self-evident.
The United States crosses the line again in the China-related maritime disputes of sovereignty, such as increasing military input in the Asia-Pacific region by taking advantage of contradictions between China and other nations, stirring up tensions over certain major sensitive issues while ignoring the feelings of Chinese people, and becoming smug about its interference with maritime disputes and restraint over China.
As some countries concerned express their welcome to the United States for its participation in the South China Sea issue, it seems that the Obama Administration has an impulse to turn the attitude to more dangerous strategic moves, which indicates that the United States will lose the balance in dealing with its relations with China and other countries and conduct the strategic rivalry with China. However the result is likely to be that the United States, which was just out of troubles in Middle East, will be trapped in the issues of South China Sea and East China Sea.
Any Asia-Pacific policy against China is bound to be short-lived or come to an end quickly, which is determined by the current times and the intertwined interests between China and the United States.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90883/7892161.html
Pentagon’s 30,000-pound bunker-buster ‘superbomb’ ready for use
Get short URL
email story to a friendprint version
Published: 26 July, 2012, 23:00
Edited: 27 July, 2012, 03:31
The biggest conventional bomb ever developed is ready to wreak destruction upon the enemies of the US. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said its record-breaking bunker-buster has become operational after years of testing.
“If it needed to go today, we would be ready to do that,” said Donley. “We continue to do testing on the bomb to refine its capabilities, and that is ongoing. We also have the capability to go with existing configuration today.”
The Pentagon has spent $330 million to develop and deliver more than 20 of the precision-guided Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker-busters, which are designed to blast through up to 200 feet of concrete.
Although there has previously been a bigger nuclear device, the new conventional rocket is six times the weight of the previous bunker-buster used by the US Air Force, and carries an explosive payload of 5,300 pounds.
US military chiefs openly admitted the weapon was built to attack the fortified nuclear facilities of “rogue states” such as Iran and North Korea. Although the Pentagon insists that it is not aimed at a specific threat, unnamed officials within the ministry have repeatedly claimed the bomb is being tailor-made to disable Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, or at least to intimidate Tehran.
Iran is working at breakneck speed to expand its Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is built inside a mountain in the heart of the country, and has previously been declared “impregnable” by senior officials in Tehran. Iran has often paraded its fast-advancing nuclear program, while denying that it intends to build a nuclear bomb.
Earlier this year, the Pentagon rapidly diverted $120 million in two separate tranches from other weapons programs to MOPs. The money was transferred to significantly redesign and upgrade the precision-guided missile to provide “an enhanced threat response” against the “deepest bunkers.”
Donley’s claim can be read as a reassertion of US determination to thwart Iran’s atomic ambitions.
Whether the MOP would be able to actually destroy Fordo is open to debate and may not be known by either of the sides.
The effectiveness of bunker-busters depends on the strength of the soil into which it plunges, how well it makes contact, and the internal structure of the facilities. In the case of Fordo, the US may only have a sketchy idea of its layout.
At best, the US believes a successful strike could set the Iranian program back several years, and, at worst, to at least collapse the passageways to the facility and force substantial rebuilding work.
Two bombs can be mounted simultaneously on a modified B-52 bomber, and a US official previously claimed the effectiveness of any operation would depend on how many “tries at the apple” the US bombers get.
Nonetheless, even if the MOP can be of limited effectiveness against Iran, the United States has precious little alternative. The only other weapon capable of destroying such a facility from the air would be a tactical nuclear missile.
http://www.rt.com/news/massive-ordnance-penetrator-bomb-bunker-buster-144/
holy crap! God bless our boys!
Economy is a positive for Obama, but that could change
huh ?!?