"Insane American Hegemony Threatens Life on Earth"

[worlds beyond]

"February 27, 2010



The Road to Armageddon:
The Insane Drive for American Hegemony Threatens Life on Earth


by Paul Craig Roberts


Global Research, February 26, 2010



The Washington Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper’s website for the past three days was the “Inside the Beltway” report, “Explosive News,” about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad on February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.


I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press conference seriously.


How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers suddenly disintegrate into fine dust? How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers suddenly fail as a result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires? “A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7,” reports the Washington Times.


The paper reports that the architects and engineers have concluded that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology provided “insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction” and are “calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials.”


The newspaper reports that Richard Gage, the spokesperson for the architects and engineers said: “Government officials will be notified that ‘Misprision of Treason,’ U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382) is a serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act. The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial.”



There is now an organization, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. At the main press conference in San Francisco, Eric Lawyer,the head of that organization, announced the firefighters’ support for the architects and engineers’ demands. He reported that no forensic investigation was made of the fires that are alleged to have destroyed the three buildings and that this failure constitutes a crime.



Mandated procedures were not followed, and instead of being preserved and investigated, the crime scene was destroyed. He also reported that there are more than one hundred first responders who heard and experienced explosions and that there is radio, audio and video evidence of explosions.


Also at the press conference, physicist Steven Jones presented the evidence of nano-thermite in the residue of the WTC buildings found by an international panel of scientists led by University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Professor Niels Harrit. Nano-thermite is a high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic capable of instantly melting steel girders.


Before we yell “conspiracy theory,” we should be aware that the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists offer no theory. They provide evidence that challenges the official theory. This evidence is not going to go away.


If expressing doubts or reservations about the official story in the 9/11 Commission Report makes a person a conspiracy theory kook, then we have to include both co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission and the Commission’s legal counsel, all of whom have written books in which they clearly state that they were lied to by government officials when they conducted their investigation, or, rather, when they presided over the investigation conducted by executive director Philip Zelikow, a member of President George W. Bush’s transition team and Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a co-author of Bush Secretary of State Condi “Mushroom Cloud” Rice.


There will always be Americans who will believe whatever the government tells them no matter how many times they know the government has lied to them. Despite expensive wars that threaten Social Security and Medicare, wars based on non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, non-existent Saddam Hussein connections to al Qaida, non-existent Afghan participation in the 9/11 attacks, and the non-existent Iranian nukes that are being hyped as the reason for the next American war of aggression in the Middle East, more than half of the U.S. population still believes the fantastic story that the government has told them about 9/11, a Muslim conspiracy that outwitted the entire Western world.


Moreover, it doesn’t matter to these Americans how often the government changes its story. For example, Americans first heard of Osama bin Laden because the Bush regime pinned the 9/11 attacks on him. Over the years video after video was served up to the gullible American public of bin Laden’s pronouncements. Experts dismissed the videos as fakes, but Americans remained their gullible selves. Then suddenly last year a new 9/11 “mastermind” emerged to take bin Laden’s place, the captive Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the detainee waterboarded 183 times until he confessed to mastermining the 9/11 attack.


In the Middle Ages confessions extracted by torture constituted evidence, but self-incrimination has been a no-no in the U.S. legal system since our founding. But with the Bush regime and the Republican federal judges, whom we were assured would defend the U.S. Constitution, the self-incrimination of Sheik Mohammed stands today as the only evidence the U.S. government has that Muslim terrorists pulled off 9/11.


If a person considers the feats attributed to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, they are simply unbelievable. Sheik Mohammed is a more brilliant, capable superhero than V in the fantasy movie, “V for Vendetta.” Sheik Mohammed outwitted all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies along with those of all U.S. allies or puppets, including Israel’s Mossad. No intelligence service on earth or all of them combined was a match for Sheik Mohammed.


Sheik Mohammed outwitted the U.S. National Security Council, Dick Cheney, the Pentagon, the State Department, NORAD, the U.S. Air Force, and Air Traffic Control.

He caused Airport Security to fail four times in one morning. He caused the state-of-the-art air defenses of the Pentagon to fail, allowing a hijacked airliner, which was off course all morning while the U.S. Air Force, for the first time in history, was unable to get aloft intercepter aircraft, to crash into the Pentagon.


Sheik Mohammed was able to perform these feats with unqualified pilots.


Sheik Mohammed, even as a waterboarded detainee, has managed to prevent the FBI from releasing the many confiscated videos that would show, according to the official story, the hijacked airliner hitting the Penagon.



How naive do you have to be to believe that any human, or for that matter Hollywood fantasy character, is this powerful and capable?


If Sheik Mohammed has these superhuman capabilities, how did the incompetent Americans catch him? This guy is a patsy tortured into confession in order to keep the American naifs believing the government’s conspiracy theory.


What is going on here is that the U.S. government has to bring the 9/11 mystery to an end. The government must put on trial and convict a culprit so that it can close the case before it explodes. Anyone waterboarded 183 times would confess to anything.


The U.S. government has responded to the evidence being arrayed against its outlandish 9/11 conspiracy theory by redefining the war on terror from external to internal enemies. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on February 21 that American extremists are now as big a concern as international terrorists. Extremists, of course, are people who get in the way of the government’s agenda, such as the 1,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The group used to be 100, now it is 1,000. What if it becomes 10,000?


Cass Sunstein, an Obama regime official, has a solution for the 9/11 skeptics: Infiltrate them and provoke them into statements and actions that can be used to discredit or to arrest them. But get rid of them at all cost.


Why employ such extreme measures against alleged kooks if they only provide entertainment and laughs? Is the government worried that they are on to something?


Instead, why doesn’t the U.S. government simply confront the evidence that is presented and answer it?


If the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists are merely kooks, it would be a simple matter to acknowledge their evidence and refute it. Why is it necessary to infiltrate them with police agents and to set them up?


Many Americans would reply that “their” government would never even dream of killing Americans by hijacking airliners and destroying buildings in order to advance a government agenda. But on February 3, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. government can assassinate its own citizens when they are overseas. No arrest, trial, or conviction of a capital crime is necessary. Just straight out murder.


Obviously, if the U.S. government can murder its citizens abroad it can murder them at home, and has done so. For example, 100 Branch Davidians were murdered in Waco, Texas, by the Clinton administration for no legitimate reason. The government just decided to use its power knowing that it could get away with it, which it did.


Americans who think “their” government is some kind of morally pure operation would do well to familiarize themselves with Operation Northwoods.

Operation Northwoods was a plot drawn up by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff for the CIA to commit acts of terrorism in American cities and fabricate evidence blaming Castro so that the U.S. could gain domestic and international support for regime change in Cuba. The secret plan was nixed by President John F. Kennedy and was declassified by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. It is available online in the National Security Archive. There are numerous online accounts available, including Wikipedia. James Bamford’s book, Body of Secrets, also summarizes the plot:

“Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman [Gen. Lemnitzer] and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.”


Prior to 9/11 the American neoconservatives were explicit that the wars of aggression that they intended to launch in the Middle East required “a new Pearl Harbor.”


For their own good and that of the wider world, Americans need to pay attention to the growing body of experts who are telling them that the government’s account of 9/11 fails their investigation. 9/11 launched the neoconservative plan for U.S. world hegemony. As I write the U.S. government is purchasing the agreement of foreign governments that border Russia to accept U.S. missile interceptor bases.


The U.S. intends to ring Russia with U.S. missile bases from Poland through central Europe and Kosovo to Georgia, Azerbaijan and central Asia. [see www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17709 ] U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke declared on February 20 that al Qaida is moving into former central Asian constituent parts of the Soviet Union, such as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan. Holbrooke is soliciting U.S. bases in these former Soviet republics under the guise of the ever-expanding “war on terror.”


The U.S. has already encircled Iran with military bases. The U.S. government intends to neutralize China by seizing control over the Middle East and cutting China off from oil.


This plan assumes that Russia and China, nuclear armed states, will be intimidated by U.S. anti-missile defenses and acquiesce to U.S. hegemony and that China will lack oil for its industries and military.



The U.S. government is delusional. Russian military and political leaders have responded to the obvious threat by declaring NATO a direct threat to the security of Russia and by announcing a change in Russian war doctrine to the pre-emptive launch of nuclear weapons. The Chinese are too confident to be bullied by a washed up American “superpower.”



The morons in Washington are pushing the envelop of nuclear war. The insane drive for American hegemony threatens life on earth. The American people, by accepting the lies and deceptions of “their” government, are facilitating this outcome."



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17821

[worlds beyond]

""How Wars Are Born: China versus the U.S.


Beijing Challenges American Expansionism


by Shamus Cooke


Global Research, April 30, 2010


http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/18921.jpg

Those of us making the “radical” claim that wars are the result of economic/corporate interests pushed abroad, were recently given a nod of approval from a typically unfriendly source, The New York Times.



The corporate controlled New York Times published a revealing article about how U.S. foreign policy really works, and why. The motive behind the sincerity is that China’s foreign policy was being attacked. However, the article soon made it clear that China’s policy is the same as the U.S.’s : dominating regions that are of “economic (corporate) interest” — raw materials, cheap labor, shipping lanes, markets, etc. — through military buildup.



Dangerously, the article discusses how China’s economic expansion —and the military buildup used to protect it — is coming into conflict with the U.S.overseas militarism. For example:


"The Chinese military is seeking to project naval power well beyond the Chinese coast, from the oil ports of the Middle East to the shipping lanes of the Pacific, where the United States Navy has long reigned as the dominant force, military officials and analysts say."


Why is China expanding militarily?


“Chinese admirals say they want warships to escort commercial vessels that are crucial to the country’s economy, from as far as the Persian Gulf to theStrait of Malacca, in Southeast Asia, and to help secure Chinese interests in the resource-rich South and East China Seas.” (April 24, 2010).


Shen Dingli, a Chinese intellectual, recently argued in favor of creating the firstChinese overseas military bases (the U.S. has 909 military facilities in foreign countries):


“With the continuous expansion of China's overseas business, the governments are more accountable for protecting the overseas interests…the guarantee of smooth trading; the prevention of overseas intervention…” (January 28, 2010 - China.org).


Typically, the U.S. military is in charge of policing most of the global shipping lanes, so that corporate goods are unhampered by pirates or hostile nations, etc. But China is no longer content with this situation, and wants protections of its own. But why?



One reason is that China has been listening to the increasingly hostile attitude of the U.S. corporate elite, who have expressed the view that China’s economic rise is inherently in conflict with or in competition with the profit-making ability of U.S. corporations. Obama’s recent provocations against China — arm sales to Taiwan, the visit to Washington by the Dali Lama, threats about Iran, currency, etc. — are all proof that China’s economic rise will not be met with friendship and cooperation.



The above-mentioned New York Times article admits “…there are few indications that China has aggressive intentions toward the United States or other countries.” Nevertheless, the whole article intends to scare and frighten. For instance:



“Of particular concern is that elements of China’s military modernization appear designed to challenge our [U.S. Navy’s] freedom of action in the region,” the admiral [Willard] said.


“Japan is anxious, too…”


and


“Lee Kuan Yew, the former Singaporean leader, reflected widespread anxieties when he noted China’s naval rise and urged the United States to maintain its regional presence.”


These scare tactics are intended to steer public opinion into a hostile stance towards China, which the U.S. government views as a possible war target. This eventuality was made clear later in the article:


“…in reaction to China’s growth, the United States has recently transferred submarines from the Atlantic to the Pacific so that most of its nuclear-powered attack submarines are now in the Pacific... The United States has also begun rotating three to four submarines on deployments out of Guam, reviving a practice that had ended with the cold war…”


And most alarmingly: “American vessels now frequently survey the [Chinese] submarine base at Hainan island, and that activity leads to occasional friction with Chinese ships.”



China’s economic and military rise is pushing up against territory dominated by the U.S. military, which is pushing back. Military “incidents” are increasingly likely in this situation, which can be used as a pretext for war.



Behind the military jockeying for power are economic interests. Controlling the U.S. economy are powerful corporations, who rely on the U.S. military to ensure them super profits overseas, including domination over whole regions — the Middle East, Latin America, the Pacific — that are viewed as the “exclusive economic zones” of U.S. corporations. The fact that China is now declaring itself master of its own zones is intolerable for U.S. corporations, which will stop at nothing — including war — to maintain U.S. military dominance over the globe. "


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18921

[freedom1st]

It's the same people behind China imo. I think the real enemies (contrived) could be US and Europe. Not sure if there is a link between British monarchy and China at this time, but could be.
In essence I don't think the reality is anything like what we think it is.

[mikey mikey]

It's the same people behind China imo. I think the real enemies (contrived) could be US and Europe. Not sure if there is a link between British monarchy and China at this time, but could be.
In essence I don't think the reality is anything like what we think it is.

Good post. Check out worldbeyond's Chomsky post. It is very relevant.

[freedom1st]

Good post. Check out worldbeyond's Chomsky post. It is very relevant.

Don't suppose you have a link do you mikey? If it's obvious where I can find it then I apologise for asking but I'm not very good with the search function.

[puckem]

Don't suppose you have a link do you mikey? If it's obvious where I can find it then I apologise for asking but I'm not very good with the search function.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114660&highlight=Chomsky

[freedom1st]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114660&highlight=Chomsky

Thanks puckem.:)

[atredies]

"February 27, 2010
The U.S. has already encircled Iran with military bases.


A 2min. video clip from the doc 'The Oil Factor' that will show just that.
http://www.exras.netne.net/bases.wmv

[mikey mikey]

Thanks puckem.:)

Thanks puckem. You're a gent.:cool:

Sorry I didn't get back to you quicky freedom1st. I am cooking while I post!:o

[freedom1st]

Thanks puckem. You're a gent.:cool:

Sorry I didn't get back to you quicky freedom1st. I am cooking while I post!:o

No probs. What you cooking?

[mikey mikey]

No probs. What you cooking?

New potatoes boiled with their skins on and steamed cod under a white sauce. Followed with a salmon steak wrapped in foil baked with lemon rind and parsley. Then strawberries cut into halves and mixed with squeezed lemon juice and chilled in the freezer while we eat the first stuff.

Chilled glass of white wine each too.

I love cooking for my wife:)

[innerlight]

great read sir. copy n pasting to family emails. pretty sure they won't read past 2nd paragraph, but trying never hurts.

[atredies]

"February 27, 2010

"The U.S. government intends to neutralize China by seizing control over the Middle East and cutting China off from oil. "



Maybe that's why China is spending a lot of money on Iranian LNG and oil project.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=107324&sectionid=351020103
28 Sep 2009 - Iran, China sign a major oilfield deal.

China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) has signed a contract with National
Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) for the development of Iran's South Azadegan
oilfield.

The Chinese company will buy a 70 percent share of the whole project,
according to an agreement signed Sunday in Lausanne, Switzerland between
CNPC and NIOC's overseas investment subsidiary, Naftiran Intertrade
Company (NICO) that covers a 90 percent stake in the project.

CNPC, which won a bid in January to develop the North Azadegan oilfield,
now holds a 70 percent share of the project with NICO holding 20
percent, and Inpex of Japan having the remaining 10 percent.

The South Azadegan project is slated to produce 260,000 barrels of crude
oil per day, and its development will cost around $2.5 billion.

The field, along the Iraqi border, holds reserves estimated at
approximately 42 billion barrels of oil, one of the world's largest
finds in the last 30 years.

Iran provides 14 percent of China's demand for oil.

The deal is couched in buy-back terms, in which CNPC will hand over the
operation of the field to NIOC after development and will receive
payments from the oil production for a few years to cover its
investment.

China's investment in Iran's energy sector has increased as some western
countries, led by the US, have sanctioned Iran over its peaceful nuclear
program.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601104&sid=aWVnwjppjOXI
Iran, China Sign $5 Billion Contract on South Pars Gas Field.

June 10 (Bloomberg) -- National Iranian Oil Co. said it has signed a $5
billion contract with China National Petroleum Corp. to develop Phase 11
of the South Pars gas field.

The project will produce 2 billion cubic meters of natural gas and
70,000 barrels of gas condensates a day, the Middle Eastern state-oil
company said in a statement posted on its Web site on June 5, citing
Managing Director Seifollah Jashnsaz.

China National replaced French oil producer Total SA, which had signed
an initial agreement with National Iranian Oil on the phase 11
development, according to the statement. Iran decided to choose another
partner because Total was delaying the project, it said.

South Pars gas field is the world’s largest gas reservoir shared by Iran
and Qatar, National Iranian Oil said in the statement. The Iranian part
is divided into 24 phases, it said.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=39363
LONDON, Dec 20, 2006 Iran and China's CNOOC Sign $16 Billion Gas Deal.

The Iranian government and China's biggest offshore oil producer, CNOOC
Ltd. (0883.HK), have signed a $16-billion natural gas deal, Iranian news
agency Mehr reported Wednesday.

Mehr, citing Chinese news agency Xinhua, said the deal would cover the
development of Iran's northern Pars gas field and the construction of
liquefied natural gas facilities which will export gas to China.

[puckem]

Thanks puckem.:)
Your welcome.
Thanks puckem. You're a gent.:cool:

Sorry I didn't get back to you quicky freedom1st. I am cooking while I post!:o
heh, no worries but... thanks ;)

[atredies]

A recommended Doc.

CHINA VS THE US: THE BATTLE FOR OIL

CHINA VS THE US: THE BATTLE FOR OIL (1/7) - YouTube

[freedom1st]

New potatoes boiled with their skins on and steamed cod under a white sauce. Followed with a salmon steak wrapped in foil baked with lemon rind and parsley. Then strawberries cut into halves and mixed with squeezed lemon juice and chilled in the freezer while we eat the first stuff.

Chilled glass of white wine each too.

I love cooking for my wife:)

Yum yum and very healthy.

[worlds beyond]

Maybe that's why China is spending a lot of money on Iranian LNG and oil project.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=107324&sectionid=351020103
28 Sep 2009 - Iran, China sign a major oilfield deal.

China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) has signed a contract with National
Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) for the development of Iran's South Azadegan
oilfield.

The Chinese company will buy a 70 percent share of the whole project,
according to an agreement signed Sunday in Lausanne, Switzerland between
CNPC and NIOC's overseas investment subsidiary, Naftiran Intertrade
Company (NICO) that covers a 90 percent stake in the project.

CNPC, which won a bid in January to develop the North Azadegan oilfield,
now holds a 70 percent share of the project with NICO holding 20
percent, and Inpex of Japan having the remaining 10 percent.

The South Azadegan project is slated to produce 260,000 barrels of crude
oil per day, and its development will cost around $2.5 billion.

The field, along the Iraqi border, holds reserves estimated at
approximately 42 billion barrels of oil, one of the world's largest
finds in the last 30 years.

Iran provides 14 percent of China's demand for oil.

The deal is couched in buy-back terms, in which CNPC will hand over the
operation of the field to NIOC after development and will receive
payments from the oil production for a few years to cover its
investment.

China's investment in Iran's energy sector has increased as some western
countries, led by the US, have sanctioned Iran over its peaceful nuclear
program.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601104&sid=aWVnwjppjOXI
Iran, China Sign $5 Billion Contract on South Pars Gas Field.

June 10 (Bloomberg) -- National Iranian Oil Co. said it has signed a $5
billion contract with China National Petroleum Corp. to develop Phase 11
of the South Pars gas field.

The project will produce 2 billion cubic meters of natural gas and
70,000 barrels of gas condensates a day, the Middle Eastern state-oil
company said in a statement posted on its Web site on June 5, citing
Managing Director Seifollah Jashnsaz.

China National replaced French oil producer Total SA, which had signed
an initial agreement with National Iranian Oil on the phase 11
development, according to the statement. Iran decided to choose another
partner because Total was delaying the project, it said.

South Pars gas field is the world’s largest gas reservoir shared by Iran
and Qatar, National Iranian Oil said in the statement. The Iranian part
is divided into 24 phases, it said.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=39363
LONDON, Dec 20, 2006 Iran and China's CNOOC Sign $16 Billion Gas Deal.

The Iranian government and China's biggest offshore oil producer, CNOOC
Ltd. (0883.HK), have signed a $16-billion natural gas deal, Iranian news
agency Mehr reported Wednesday.

Mehr, citing Chinese news agency Xinhua, said the deal would cover the
development of Iran's northern Pars gas field and the construction of
liquefied natural gas facilities which will export gas to China.



excellent post, and something i also feel/agree is part of the picture/truth...
have posted a few threads Re: the fight for control of Oil/Gas pipelines as being the underlying reason for war/threats of War...

i'm pretty sure that the US are furiously trying to protect their global dominance over the earth's oil (and other resources).. China's been signing deals all over Middle East (and Africa) ... and US is now going backwards in that BO recently reversed previous law/orders preventing any new drilling off US Coast.. an interesting decision given that US has already gone to war (how many times) in order to re-gain control of oil in Iraq.. and their "deals" elsewhere in M/East... together with their ever encroaching action against Iran (military or otherwise)..

this, imho, is just the beginning of what may become a very pernicious situation...

[innerlight]

does China not have natural oil deposits on the mainland or off shore?

[andyh]

I normally read globalresearch quite often but I missed this one.
What's of most interest in this report is the fact that the MSM are beginning to support "truth". I find it quite shocking and perhaps telling as there could be changes ahead (some good, some bad) if the MSM does begin to do it's job properly.

[andyh]

does China not have natural oil deposits on the mainland or off shore?

Yes, as does Russia including quite a bit of natural gas too.
They wouldn't need much for war anyway as any war between the superpowers isn't going to be fought with conventional weapons and if Russia and China were allied....well it wouldn't be pretty.

[atredies]

does China not have natural oil deposits on the mainland or off shore?

Not much, as illustrated by this chart:
http://www.ca-c.org/online/2009/journal_eng/cac-03/img-3-1.gif

But there is oil in the east China sea,,,

The Scramble for Offshore Oil. (http://taiwanreview.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=1167&CtNode=1346)

"China's push for offshore energy resources has implications for Taiwan's
national security and energy policy.

As China's energy demand and oil import bill soar and its domestic
energy sources decline, it is increasingly casting its eye offshore--to
disputed areas in the South and East China seas. This offshore drive for
oil and gas is also fueled by growing concerns regarding the security of
the Malacca Strait, through which 90 percent of its oil imports pass.
Basically China is saying it is willing to jointly develop resources in
disputed areas but if others are not interested in doing so, it will
proceed unilaterally.

This has implications for Taiwan, which has the same claims to the same
disputed areas. Regarding the East China Sea, Shi Hwei-yow, minister of
Taiwan's Coast Guard Administration, has vowed to dispatch patrol
vessels "to protect the Republic of China's maritime rights in the
national economic waters and to avoid practices undermining the
country's interests by other countries from taking root." This could be
dangerous given that in response to Japan's announced intention to drill
there, China dispatched warships to the disputed area and said the
squadron was capable of "fighting during wars" and was equipped to
"eliminate obstacles at sea."

The East China Sea is thought to contain up to 100 billion barrels of
oil as well as 200 billion cubic meters of natural gas in the area of
drilling, and it is one of the last unexplored areas with a high
potential for hydrocarbon resources located near large markets.
Ownership of the area is claimed by China, Japan and Taiwan based in
part on their claim to the Diaoyutai Islands."

[rodin]

It's the same people behind China imo. I think the real enemies (contrived) could be US and Europe. Not sure if there is a link between British monarchy and China at this time, but could be.
In essence I don't think the reality is anything like what we think it is.

FFS its the invisible empire of the international Jews running the show

How many times do you need the evidence?

Here is how America is run

http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=497

[tinyint]

Yes, as does Russia including quite a bit of natural gas too.
They wouldn't need much for war anyway as any war between the superpowers isn't going to be fought with conventional weapons and if Russia and China were allied....well it wouldn't be pretty.

Actually Russia and China are allied via the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with Iran having an observer status.

http://www.sectsco.org/

[rodin]

I normally read globalresearch quite often but I missed this one.
What's of most interest in this report is the fact that the MSM are beginning to support "truth". I find it quite shocking and perhaps telling as there could be changes ahead (some good, some bad) if the MSM does begin to do it's job properly.

All along Americans are to take the rap for the Jewish 911 operation

en route to the Jew World Order, see? Can trust national gov'mnt. Better off with a New Global System, see.

Now it makes PERFECT sense

In times of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act

[worlds beyond]

"Russian Arctic region invites China to oil and gas projects

The Press-service of the governor Yamal-Nenets Autonomous region

09:3702/05/2010


"Russia's gas and oil -rich Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Area in northern Siberia is interested in implementing joint energy projects with China, the regional governor said on Sunday.

The region, which accounts for more than 90% of Russia's natural gas output and 12% of oil production, is presenting its potential at the World Expo 2010 Exhibition in Shanghai.

"We are ready to offer our Chinese partners mutually advantageous and constructive cooperation in such spheres as hydrocarbons and solid mineral resources, the Northern Sea Route, agriculture, innovations and science," Dmitry Kobylkin said at the region's presentation.

Kobylkin said foreign investment in the region topped $1 billion last year.

"We are simply presenting Yamal as an investment target... We are ready to act as intermediaries between an investor country and the oil and gas sector and create a good investment climate," Kobylkin said.

The potential of natural gas production at explored fields alone on Yamal Peninsula is estimated at 360 billion cubic meters a year for many years to come, with the peninsula's reserves estimated at over 50 trillion cubic meters."

SHANGHAI, May 2 (RIA Novosti)


http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100502/158841589.html

[andyh]

Actually Russia and China are allied via the SCO(Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation), with Iran having an observer status.

http://www.sectsco.org/

Of course yep, a military alliance in times of war is another thing though.
If one or the other was attacked, it doesn't necessarily mean that the other would jump in and help despite any paper agreements beforehand.

IMO Russia would probably help China if attacked but I'm not so sure that China would come to Russia's aid as automatically. The Chinese rulers tend to be very cautious and have a history of not being too interested in foreign affairs.
(yes I know there's examples of them getting interested from time to time but generally speaking they are a very inwards looking bunch)

Perhaps the anglo-american empire are going to be counting on this?

One things for sure, we are going to be spectators to something very big happening very soon now.

[worlds beyond]

Of course yep, a military alliance in times of war is another thing though.
If one or the other was attacked, it doesn't necessarily mean that the other would jump in and help despite any paper agreements beforehand.

IMO Russia would probably help China if attacked but I'm not so sure that China would come to Russia's aid as automatically. The Chinese rulers tend to be very cautious and have a history of not being too interested in foreign affairs.
(yes I know there's examples of them getting interested from time to time but generally speaking they are a very inwards looking bunch)

Perhaps the anglo-american empire are going to be counting on this?

One things for sure, we are going to be spectators to something very big happening very soon now.


isn't this stated in one of the major sources of prophecy?? can;t remember where now, but i know i've read it that Russia will come to China's aid during 'end times' World War!

anyone know where it's written/anymore??

[andyh]

All along Americans are to take the rap for the Jewish 911 operation

en route to the Jew World Order, see? Can trust national gov'mnt. Better off with a New Global System, see.

Now it makes PERFECT sense

In times of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act

I see both Jewish and Jesuit influences at the highest levels.
I don't think that "everything" is down to just the Jews by any means but they do have a huge slice of "tptb cake" if you're with me.

I see the world as being mostly controlled by business and banking interests that are mostly Jewish. There is something that unites all of them though and that's their total disregard for life and their insatiable greed and networking is all they are about.

The elder protocols have indeed been carried out to the letter, as for who does it...well it doesn't matter much to me. I just label them all as rich sick bastards on a power trip and they are made up of many colours,religions and blood lines. Focusing on just the jew angle is only seeing a part of the big nasty turd dropped in the face of humanity rodin.

I'm actually less angry with tptb than I am with people who refuse to see what's happening right before their very eyes. (the "sheeple" as some call 'em)

[freedom1st]

FFS its the invisible empire of the international Jews running the show

How many times do you need the evidence?

Here is how America is run

http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=497

Did I say otherwise? What I said was that it could be the same people behind China, and yes, those same people are in all likelihood the international jews (those referred to throughout history, from Cicero to Martin Luther and many more). However, these international jews will do business by day and stab each other in the back by night. It's a game of chess and they are opponents as well imo.
Their main areas of operation are Europe and America but they have allegiance to no country and have involvement in most if not all.
My personal opinion is that at this time there is a rift between tptb and that in terms of empires, if you will, there is a clash between the two: America and Europe.
My last point was that none of us really know what is going on because we're not there. And it wouldn't surprise me if the reality turned out to be somewhat different (not saying no jews involved but perhaps something else as well).
I also look at control of the media and how they are influenced by tptb and I believe that the internet is also influenced by tptb - it couldn't be any other way.
Of course I could be wrong, as could you. But I think it unlikely that the international jews are not pulling the strings, at least in part. So, for the most part I agree with you, and didn't say anything to indicate otherwise, so calm down yeah? I'm with you on this!

[freedom1st]

I see both Jewish and Jesuit influences at the highest levels.
I don't think that "everything" is down to just the Jews by any means but they do have a huge slice of "tptb cake" if you're with me.

I see the world as being mostly controlled by business and banking interests that are mostly Jewish. There is something that unites all of them though and that's their total disregard for life and their insatiable greed and networking is all they are about.

The elder protocols have indeed been carried out to the letter, as for who does it...well it doesn't matter much to me. I just label them all as rich sick bastards on a power trip and they are made up of many colours,religions and blood lines. Focusing on just the jew angle is only seeing a part of the big nasty turd dropped in the face of humanity rodin.

I'm actually less angry with tptb than I am with people who refuse to see what's happening right before their very eyes. (the "sheeple" as some call 'em)

Same here!

[worlds beyond]

not a new article, but parts of it are v. interesting and very recently updated:


"Question: When does a defensive missile system become offensive?


Published 26 March, 2010, 15:35
Edited 28 April, 2010, 13:46


Answer: When offensive missiles are no longer capable of penetrating the defensive, anti-missile system.

"Although that is the very purpose of a missile shield – to protect one’s territory from an adversary’s missile strike – defense can turn to offense in a split second, as any football fan can readily understand.

Or to employ a different sporting analogy, imagine two gladiators, armed with equal-sized swords, fighting inside of a ring. After much strenuous clashing of metal, neither one of the warriors can gain an advantage over the other; finally, the match ends in a tightly contested draw.

The next day, the two fighters are led back into the ring, but this time around one of them is provided with a large shield, in addition to a sword. Immediately it is possible to say that the man who is armed with the shield and sword has suddenly acquired an advantage over the man with only a sword.

So what are the options left for the contestant that does not have access to a protective shield? There seem to be just two: increase the strength and size of the force in order to render the opponent’s shield less effective, or exhibit extremely talented swordplay.

Presently, this is the quandary in which Russia now finds itself: The United States, on the pretext of protecting parts of Europe from a possible rogue missile attack, will build elements of its anti-missile defense shield in Romania, a NATO member country, formerly part of the Warsaw Pact.

The US Department of Defense issued (Sept. 14, 2009) a four-phased, adaptive approach for missile defense in Europe (see 'Timeline for US Missile Defense,' below).

Meanwhile, Washington and NATO are attempting to play down the negative consequences of wide-scale missile defense, calling it purely defensive in nature. But this is nothing more than an exercise in semantics. The very moment that the US missile defense system is proven impenetrable is the moment that an arms race of unprecedented proportions will break out. Actually, it may be happening already.

“Understanding that this trend [toward greater missile defense systems] destabilizes global security,” Vladimir Kozin, head of the analytical section of the Asia-Pacific department at the Foreign Ministry, wrote in the Moscow Times, “many nations are proposing a pact that would limit the deployment of a nation’s missile defense system to its home territory only.”

Kozin concluded that if such an agreement fails to materialize, “we will be faced with both a missile defense arms race and another offensive arms race as well.”

Nikolay Makarov, the Russian Armed Forces chief of staff, did not mince his words when he told reporters last month: "The development and establishment of the (U.S.) missile shield is directed against the Russian Federation."

"Despite the declarations of those statesmen who say that, on the contrary, it provides for our security, that's far from the case," Makarov added. "For this reason it's completely understandable that we have a very negative attitude about this issue.”

Timeline for US missile defense:

• Phase One (in the 2011 timeframe) – Deploy current and proven missile defense systems available in the next two years, including the sea-based Aegis Weapon System, the SM-3 interceptor (Block IA), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/TPY-2), to address regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and our deployed personnel and their families;

• Phase Two (in the 2015 timeframe) – After appropriate testing, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea- and land-based configurations, and more advanced sensors, to expand the defended area against short- and medium-range missile threats;

• Phase Three (in the 2018 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant currently under development, to counter short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missile threats; and

• Phase Four (in the 2020 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB to help better cope with medium- and intermediate-range missiles and the potential future ICBM threat to the United States.


So it was with some surprise that this comment from the Pentagon surfaced just last week:

“There are aspects to their [Russia’s] nuclear doctrine, their military activities that we find very troubling,” said Michèle Flournoy, Defense Department undersecretary for policy.

In an interview with the Financial Times.

She said that, while Obama had stressed “the importance of reducing the role of nuclear weapons . . . if you read recent Russian military doctrine they are going in the other direction, they are actually increasing their reliance on nuclear weapons, the role in nuclear weapons in their strategy.”

The Pentagon, apparently, would respond much less aggressively upon discovering that Moscow had plans for planting missile defense in Venezuela, for example, to protect Hugo Chavez from some regional rogue state.

Although Moscow would really like to take Washington at its word that a sophisticated anti-missile system will never compromise Russian security, military doctrines are seldom written according to the promises and pledges of foreign countries, regardless of the present level of relations.

More perplexing, perhaps, is that the United States presents its anti-missile defense system as if it were some sort of static system that will never develop in either size or capabilities. This is misleading to say the least. The United States is moving ahead full steam to develop these technologies.

Just last month, for example, a US airborne laser weapon shot down a ballistic missile in the first successful test of a futuristic directed energy weapon, the US Missile Defense Agency announced.

The powerful airborne laser weapon is ostensibly aimed at deterring enemy missile attacks and providing the US military with the ability to shoot down all classes of ballistic missiles at the speed of light while they are in the boost phase of lift off.

"The revolutionary use of directed energy is very attractive for missile defense, with the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, at a range of hundreds of kilometers (miles), and at a low cost per intercept attempt compared to current technologies," the US Missile Defense Agency said, as quoted by Reuters.


Meanwhile, US missile defense architecture is not limited to Eastern Europe.

The US missile defense system “involves using radars in Alaska and California in the US and at Fylingdales in the UK.

Another radar is planned for Greenland,” the BBC reported. “Anti-missile missiles, or interceptors, are being based in Alaska (40 of them) and California (four).”

The above installations do not take into account the US interceptors based on ships, which is estimated at over 100.

All said, the best that the world can hope for from America’s ongoing missile defense plans – which, incidentally, are designed to offset hypothetical, unproven threats from Iran or North Korea – is for the American side to co-operate with Russia in all stages of operation of such technologies.

If the United States refuses to provide any level of co-operation, Russia will have its worst fears confirmed as to the true nature and purpose of these “defensive technologies.” At this point, the world may enter another Cuban missile crisis, which will see Moscow drawing a very definite line in the geopolitical sand.

US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said, in April 2009, that they would work to cut nuclear warheads, but that announcement came before Washington decided to scrap the Bush missile defense system in favor of a new one. Although Moscow was initially receptive toward Obama’s retreat on missile defense, that optimism was quickly clouded as the White House refused to reveal what its new missile defense would entail.

But for now, the international community is waiting for the outcome of the ongoing START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) talks. Russian and US negotiators have been trying to agree upon a successor to the 1991 treaty for almost a year, after both sides allowed the initial deadline of December 5 to pass.

Medvedev and Obama agreed in July that the new treaty would limit operationally deployed nuclear warheads to 1,500-1,675 from current levels of 2,200-2,700."


http://rt.com/Politics/2010-03-26/question-defensive-missile-offensive.html?fullstory

[worlds beyond]

"High-Tech Death from Above: U.S. Drone Wars Fuel War Crimes


by Tom Burghardt


Global Research, May 3, 2010


http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/18954.jpg

As America continues its uncontrolled flight towards disaster, Israeli-style "targeted killings" (assassinations) of alleged militants and unarmed civilians in the "Afpak theatre" are on the rise.

With indiscriminate attacks by armed drones soaring since President Obama was sworn into office, the Pentagon's mad dash to achieve what it describes as "full-spectrum dominance" in this regional "battlespace," has sought to leverage its dominant position as the world leader in robotized forms of state killing and obtain a decisive technological edge over their adversaries.

Judging by proverbial "facts on the ground," they'll need it. TheWorld Socialist Web Site disclosed May 1, that a "semi-annual report released by the Pentagon on the Afghanistan war recorded a sharp increase in attacks on occupation troops and scarce support for the corrupt US-backed puppet regime of President Hamid Karzai."

Despite Obama's dispatch of 35,000 troops since his inauguration as imperial Consul, socialist critic Bill Van Auken writes that the congressionally-mandated progress report "presented a grim picture of the state of the nearly nine-year-old, US-led war," and that "the country's so-called insurgents considered 2009 their 'most successful year'."

That the drone wars will escalate is underscored by a piece inAir Force Times. Writing May 1, an anonymous correspondent reports that Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Glenn Walters, the deputy director for resources and acquisition for the Pentagon's Joint Staff, said "the U.S. military has sent so many of its 6,500 UAVs to the Middle East that other operating theaters are going without."

Speaking April 28 at an Institute for Defense and Government Advancement (IDGA) conference in northern Virginia, Walters said that Obama's Afghanistan "surge" has stripped other Pentagon commands of drones and that it "will likely be a year before U.S. planners have a better handle on how many UAVs will be needed there and how many can be spared for use outside of the Middle East."

"By 2012," Walters told the killer robot conclave, "we'll have 8,000 UAVs that will have to fit into" the Defense Department's global maintenance and basing structure.

All the more reason then, in keeping with the Pentagon's twisted logic, to escalate attacks on Pakistan, raining high-tech death from above!

Remote-Controlled War Crimes

Since its inception under the criminal Bush regime, the administration's robot assassination policy has been called into question by legal scholars and civil liberties' advocates who charge that CIA, but also military pilots, waging America's undeclared drone war on Pakistan may be liable for war crimes.

During hearings last week before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's National Security and Foreign Affairs panel, Mary Ellen O'Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, told the committee that "Combat drones are battlefield weapons. They fire missiles or drop bombs capable of inflicting very serious damage. Drones are not lawful for use outside combat zones. Outside such zones, police are the proper law enforcement agents, and police are generally required to warn before using lethal force."

The one caveat I would add to the professor's statement are that "police" would be "proper law enforcement agents" outside combat zones were America a "normal" country that abides by the rule of law, including laws governing armed conflict. Clearly, a nation that squanders nearly $800B of it's treasure in a single year on death and destruction is anything but normal.

O'Connell went on to say that "restricting drones to the battlefield is the most important single rule governing their use. Yet, the United States is failing to follow it more often than not." The Notre Dame law prof continued: "At the very time we are trying to win hearts and minds to respect the rule of law, we are ourselves failing to respect a very basic rule: remote weapons systems belong on the battlefield."

In a sharply worded letter to President Obama, submitted as a statement for the record to the House panel, ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero wrote, "I am writing to express our profound concern about recent reports indicating that you have authorized a program that contemplates the killing of suspected terrorists--including U.S. citizens--located far away from zones of actual armed conflict. If accurately described, this program violates international law and, at least insofar as it affects U.S. citizens, it is also unconstitutional."

Romero stated that the "U.S. is engaged in non-international armed conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq and the lawfulness of its actions must be judged in that context. ... The entire world is not a war zone, and wartime tactics that may be permitted on the battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be deployed anywhere in the world where a terrorism suspect happens to be located."

But as the imperial project goes to ground, we can expect that the administration's policy of targeting its enemies for liquidation on the streets of Sana'a, Mogadishu or perhaps, even New York or Washington, will continue along on its merry way.

Last October, investigative journalist Jane Mayer reported inThe New Yorker that the Air Force UAV fleet "has grown from some fifty drones in 2001 to nearly two hundred; the C.I.A. will not divulge how many drones it operates. The government plans to commission hundreds more, including new generations of tiny 'nano' drones, which can fly after their prey like a killer bee through an open window."

And given the classified rules governing the CIA's "geographically unbounded use of state-sanctioned lethal force," the highly-compartmented program affords the President another plausibly deniable weapon in the Executive Branch arsenal. Because of this, Mayer writes, "there is no visible system of accountability in place, despite the fact that the agency has killed many civilians inside a politically fragile, nuclear-armed country with which the U.S. is not at war."

"Should something go wrong in the C.I.A.'s program," Mayer reports, "it's unclear what the consequences would be."

Judging however, by the response of our "forward looking" President and his "liberal" acolytes in Congress, academia and the media to widespread constitutional abuses (warrantless wiretapping), the waging of preemptive, aggressive wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan), and illegal detention and torture by the previous, and current, U.S. regimes, it's pretty obvious what those "consequences" will be.

"The Predators in the C.I.A. program," Mayer observes, "are 'flown' by civilians, both intelligence officers and private contractors." Described as "seasoned professionals" by Mayer's counterterrorism source, the CIA has outsourced "a significant portion of its work." And "from their suburban redoubt," we're informed, "they can turn the plane, zoom in on the landscape below, and decide whether to lock onto a target."

But therein lies the rub for the CIA.

During last week's congressional hearings, Loyola Law School professor David Glazier, told the House panel that the CIA's crew of killer drone pilots could, in theory at least, be prosecuted because they aren't combatants in a legal sense.

"It is my opinion, as well as that of most other law-of-war scholars I know, that those who participate in hostilities without the combatant's privilege do not violate the law of war by doing so, they simply gain no immunity from domestic laws," Glazier said.

"Under this view" Glazier continued, "CIA drone pilots are liable to prosecution under the law of any jurisdiction where attacks occur for any injuries, deaths or property damage they cause." Here's where things get interesting. "But under the legal theories adopted by our government in prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, these CIA officers as well as any higher-level government officials who have authorized or directed their attacks are committing war crimes." (emphasis added)

There it is, plug-and-play state killing; but fear not.

As a top Bush administration aide told investigative journalist Ron Suskind in 2004: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

While the swagger and imperial hubris of the Bush regime may have been swapped for the vastly superior Obama (PR) product, the results are inevitably the same: death and destruction on a planetary scale and to hell with the law and human rights.

Drone Wars Escalate

As The Long War Journal noted in January, the American drone campaign "in Pakistan's tribal areas remains the cornerstone of the effort to root out and decapitate the senior leadership of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other allied terror groups, and to disrupt both al Qaeda's global and local operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

CNN reported that CIA Director, Leon Panetta, told the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles last May that the American drone war is "the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt" the leadership of the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets known as al-Qaeda.

But with civilian deaths spiking, the robot reign of terror has sparked widespread opposition across all political sectors in Pakistan, from far-right Islamist factions to the socialist left. While Pentagon and CIA officials claim that civilian deaths are "regrettable," an unintended consequence of America's global imperial project, facts on the ground tell a different tale.

Last year, investigative journalist Amir Mir reported in Lahore's English-language newspaper, The News, that of 60 "cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent."

According to Mir, the "drone attacks went wrong due to faulty intelligence information, killing hundreds of innocent civilians, including women and children." The Pentagon and CIA dispute these figures.

In February however, Mir disclosed that Afghanistan-based Predator drones "carried out a record number of 12 deadly missile strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan in January 2010, of which 10 went wrong and failed to hit their targets, killing 123 innocent Pakistanis. The remaining two successful drone strikes killed three al-Qaeda leaders, wanted by the Americans."

According to the journalist, the spike in drone assaults indicated that "revenge is the major motive for these attacks," and can be "attributed to December 30, 2009 suicide bombing in the Khost area of Afghanistan bordering North Waziristan, which killed seven CIA agents. US officials later identified the bomber as Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, a Jordanian national linked to both al-Qaeda and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)."

In other words, the slaughter of 123 civilians was viewed by the CIA and Pentagon as a splendid means "to avenge the loss of the seven CIA agents and to raise morale of its forces in Afghanistan."

Sensitive as always to the suffering of others, The Washington Post reported April 26, that "CIA is using new, smaller missiles and advanced surveillance techniques to minimize civilian casualties in its targeted killings of suspected insurgents in Pakistan's tribal areas, according to current and former officials in the United States and Pakistan."

According to the Post, "technological improvements" in recent months "have resulted in more accurate operations that have provoked relatively little public outrage," the unnamed officials said.

Stung by the growing furor over civilian deaths, the Agency defensively claims their assassination program delivers "precision unsurpassed in the history of warfare."

Chief among the "improvements" cited by the Post, CIA Predators are now fielding a Lockheed Martin-designed "Small Smart Weapon" called the Scorpion. Clocking-in at 21 inches, weighing 35 pounds and having the diameter of a "small coffee cup," the Post reports that it causes far less damage than a Hellfire "and it can be fitted with four different guidance systems that allow it to home in on targets as small as a single person, in complete darkness."

According to Lockheed Martin, the Scorpion "provides the warfighter with low cost lethality against a broad target set" and "ensures accuracy to less than one meter and dramatically reduces the possibility of collateral damage."

I'm sure this comes as a comforting reassurance of America's pure intentions, especially for "Afpak" women and children who've been turned into smoldering body parts scattered across the landscape of our latest "good war."

An Evolving Marketplace...for High-Tech Death

As the United States continues its drive to dominate resource-rich, but politically unstable regions of the world, the Pentagon, in a throw-back to the "Camelot" era of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations' have embraced the counterinsurgency doctrine of fighting multiple "brushfire" wars in inhospitable global hot-spots.

Increasingly, as the "battlespace" morphs from fighting in jungles, deserts or that former Cold War set-piece, the European plain, directly into large urban areas, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) takes center stage. While "situational awareness" of the hot zone has always been a preoccupation of Pentagon planners, the nature of urban combat places a premium on complex technological systems that gather intelligence--from low earth orbit to right outside your door.

Such preoccupations have been a boon for America's defense and security grifters.

During 2010's first quarter, Washington Technology reported, that "contracts announced during January, February and March had values that ranged from $266 million to $2.8 billion."

According to reporter Nick Wakeman, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., "secured" a $266 million contract from the Air Force for "program and technical support for the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial systems."

Work will include "program and configuration management, logistics, technical services, flight and operations, software maintenance and data collection."

As investigative journalist Nick Turse reported for TomDispatchin January, the Pentagon "cut two sizeable checks to ensure that unmanned operations involving the MQ-1 Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper will continue full-speed ahead in 2010." In addition to the General Atomics deal, Turse reported that the Air Force inked a "$38 million contract with defense giant Raytheon for logistics support for the targeting systems of both drones."

As combat operations across the "Afpak theatre" escalate, the use of drones by both the CIA and Air Force have sharply increased; indeed, the Pentagon is on a veritable shopping spree.

This is borne-out by the flight hours logged by unmanned systems. "In 2004" Turse writes, "Reapers, just beginning to soar, flew 71 hours in total, according to Air Force documents; in 2006, that number had risen to 3,123 hours; and last year, 25,391 hours."

According to Air Force estimates Turse avers, "the combined flight hours of all its drones--Predators, Reapers, and unarmed RQ-4 Global Hawks--will exceed 250,000 hours, about the total number of hours flown by all Air Force drones from 1995-2007. In 2011, the 300,000 hour-a-year barrier is expected to be crossed for the first time, and after that the sky's the limit."

Such estimates can only be music to the ears of General Atomics' shareholders.

While these systems are powerful reminders that being an Empire means never having to say you're sorry to the victims, it seems they're not quite good enough.

Air Force Times reported last May that the Air Force "is already looking at a third generation of armed remote-control planes even as it continues to build up its fleet of MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reapers."

Although General Atomics has the lock on providing the CIA and Pentagon with MQ-1 and MQ-9s, the "service has started an analysis" for a next gen killer drone, the MQ-X, "with the goal of choosing a plane in 2012, Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford told reporters."

According to Air Force Times, "General Atomics has already unveiled a jet-powered UAV called the Avenger, able to fly at 460 mph--about twice as fast as the Reaper--and carry 3,000 pounds of weapons and sensors."

Last week, Defense Systems reported that the Defense Department "is reassessing its view of unmanned aerial vehicles--a key component of modern combat operations--and deciding what the military needs from UAVs beyond their traditional use as a platform to gather intelligence and fire weapons."

Defense Systems' reporter Amber Corrin wrote that "next-generation UAVs will need to take on additional duties including cargo transport, refueling and possible medical applications, and they will need to be interoperable with different platforms, users and military services."

One wag, Col. Dale Fridley, the Director of the Air Force Unmanned Aerial Systems Task Force, said that the Air Force is looking for a "plug-and-play" approach and that "interoperable command and control, multi-access controls and enhanced human-system interfaces are among the most important short-term enablers in developing next-generation UAVs."

Fridley described the proposed MQ-X as the "embodiment of the flight plan."

According to General Atomics, the firm's next-gen, jet-powered Predator C drone, the Avenger, can attain air speeds far greater than the lumbering systems currently operating. With a 41-foot long fuselage and 66-foot wingspan, the system can "can carry the same mix of weapons as Predator B," the MQ-9 Reaper. The company envisages the manufacture of both armed and unarmed reconnaissance models for the Defense Department and other willing customers.

And with Predators clocking more than 30,000 hours of flight time per month, and with more than 40 UAVs aloft "every second of every day," as GA boosters put it, and with the Air Force and the CIA seeking the capability to fly anywhere from 50-75 daily "missions" above Afghanistan, Pakistan and who knows where else, the always-open wallet's of the American people will continue feeding, and accelerating, the imperialist "kill chain."



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18954

[worlds beyond]

"U.S. discloses size of nuclear arsenal

The Obama administration releases a set of figures that has remained an official government secret since the Manhattan project during World War II.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks at the U.N. led U.S. and other diplomats to walk out during his speech. (Richard Drew / Associated Press / May 4, 2010)




By Paul Richter and
Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times

May 4, 2010


Reporting from the United Nations and Washington

The Obama administration disclosed the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal for the first time on Monday, issuing a set of figures that has remained an official government secret since the Manhattan project during World War II.

The administration said the stockpile consists of 5,113 active and inactive warheads, down from a high of 31,255 in 1967, in the years after the Cuban missile crisis.

Although no U.S. administration had ever revealed the current size of its weapons stockpile, the number came as little surprise. Most experts had made estimates close to the actual figures. The Federation of American Scientists, which advocates arms control, for instance, had estimated the inventory at 5,100.


Receive breaking news alerts on your mobile device. Register »

However, administration officials and advocates who supported the public release of the information said the figures would help demonstrate a U.S. commitment to openness about its arms program and prod other countries, especially China, to do likewise.

"We think it is in our national security interests to be as transparent as we can be about the nuclear program of the United States," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at a news conference at the United Nations. "We think that builds confidence."

Clinton announced the release of the numbers during an address to the opening session of an international conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the cornerstone world treaty on nuclear inventories.

On its first day Monday, the conference flared into an angry public confrontation between the United States and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad castigated the United States for its use of nuclear weapons in World War II.

Clinton denounced the Iranian president's "tired, false and sometimes wild accusations," and called for a crackdown on nations, like Iran, that she said have reneged on their commitments to the nonproliferation treaty.

"Iran will do whatever it can to divert attention away from its own record," she said.

Clinton pointed to steps the Obama administration is taking to reduce the threat and importance of nuclear weapons, pointing to a new arms reduction agreement with Russia, a revamped U.S. nuclear policy and other measures.

"The United States is showing it is being increasingly transparent in respect to its own nuclear weapons program," said a senior Defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid overshadowing Clinton's remarks.

The figures released Monday show the number of U.S. warheads in each year from 1962 to 2009, as well as the number of warheads dismantled each year from 1994 to 2009. In 1993, the Department of Energy released historical data on the size of the atomic arsenal for the years before 1962.

The only figure not released is the number of warheads awaiting destruction. Officials said there were several thousand of those weapons, and that they expect to release an exact number in the near future.

The administration also did not disclose how many weapons are active, or nearly ready for use, and those that are inactive, or held in reserve. The figures also do not specify how many are strategic, long-range weapons and how many are shorter-range tactical weapons.

The stockpile will shrink further as the number of strategic warheads is cut to 1,550 if the New START treaty with Russia is ratified.

Hans M. Kristensen, the director of the nuclear information project for the Federation of American Scientists, said the release of the numbers showed it was never really necessary to make them classified information.

In his speech, Iran's president said U.S. leaders had become "among the most hated … in human history" for their use of nuclear weapons in World War II against Japan. U.S. and European diplomats walked out to show their displeasure.

U.S. officials and their allies are crafting a fourth set of U.N. Security Council economic sanctions in hopes of pressuring Iran to abandon nuclear enrichment. Iran hopes to appeal to non-nuclear developing nations, who resent the nuclear powers' unwillingness to abandon their own stockpiles."

paul.richter@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-nuclear-conference-20100504,0,465692.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fnationworld% 2Fworld+%28L.A.+Times+-+World+News%29

[worlds beyond]

interesting (and predictable) just how much of the US nuclear arsenal remains totally hidden or "figures unavailable"...

if anyone actually swallows BO's attempts/acts to appear as Global Peacemaker, or believes there being ANY level of integrity in his claims to be "reducing nuclear stockpiles" then they're in for one heck of a wake-up call sometime soon.

[andyh]

Greetings Professor Falken.....
Shall we play a game?

[worlds beyond]

Greetings Professor Falken.....
Shall we play a game?

'War Games'! :D

seriously though, it's very concerning how this is all looking at the moment.. and the clear direction US is leading things towards.. :mad: :(

[worlds beyond]

"Who is a Threat to World Peace?

The Declared Nuclear Powers, America, Britain and France Defeated by the Power of Reason


by Finian Cunningham


Global Research, May 4, 2010



http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures/18975.jpg

It is a fairly reliable rule of thumb that when a person refuses to listen to the argument of another, it is a sign that the person is betraying the fact that his own argument is flawed – or downright spurious.



Take the case of the US and its allies, Britain and France in particular, which allege that Iran is a threat to world peace, has sinister ambitions to build nuclear weapons and is in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).



The latter, signed in 1970, obliges its 189 signatories to desist from obtaining nuclear weapons or, if they already have possession, to ensure that these weapons are not provided to other countries and for themselves to take earnest steps to disarm. The NPT, however, affords the legal right to all signatories to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes, such as electrical power and medical treatment.



For its part, Iran has (repeatedly) stated that central to its foreign policy is “justice” and neighbourly relations. Unlike nuclear-armed US, Britain and France, which are conducting criminal wars in at least three countries, Iran is not at war with anyone. As for NPT compliance, Iran has consistently denied the allegation that it is intending to build nuclear weapons, saying that such weaponry is “immoral”. The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, confirms after several years of rigorous inspections that the agency has not seen any evidence of Iran possessing such weaponry or the technological means for achieving it. Iran has openly declared that it is developing uranium-enriching technology for civilian purposes and has given notice of these developments at every step – as per its treaty obligation.



So what happens when these opponents come face to face?



On Monday, 3 May 2010 – a date worth remembering – Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the NPT review conference in New York. Among the attendees to the summit were US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and other delegates from the US, Britain and France. When Ahmadinejad spoke, he again rejected the above allegations against his country and he added that the NPT should now be given renewed impetus to oversee all nuclear-armed states disarming within a specific time frame.



Some 95 per cent of the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons are possessed by the US and Russia. The US declares over 5,100 of these warheads. In contravention of its NPT obligations, the US has shared its nuclear technology with India and Israel, with the latter possessing some 200 warheads and the only country in the Middle East to have nuclear arms.



In his speech to the NPT conference, Ahmadinejad also highlighted the injustice and hypocrisy of nuclear-armed western powers trying to block other countries developing civilian nuclear energy while at the same time maintaining their long-standing support for the destabilising anomaly of a nuclear-armed Israel, which (to any reasonable person) constitutes a clear and present danger to world peace.



Now here’s the proof of the argument. Ahmadinejad was then paid the compliment of the world seeing the American, British and French delegates churlishly stomping out of the assembly as he was delivering his speech. Such is the power of reason."


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18975

[worlds beyond]

"US Military Spending Far Outpaces Rest of the World"

Saturday, 29 May 2010 11:00 Amanda Bransford


"The United States continues to lead the world in defense spending, according to a new report released Thursday by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a U.S.-based non-partisan research organization.

In fact, the U.S. outspends Russia, the next highest spender, by more than 800 percent.

In 2008, the most recent year for which figures are available, the U.S. expenditure was 696.3 billion dollars, followed by Russia’s 86 billion and China’s 83.5 billion.

The U.S. defense budget is 15 times that of Japan, 47 times that of Israel, and nearly 73 times that of Iran.

Not only does U.S. spending dwarf that of other nations, but it has also grown in recent years.

The budget for fiscal year 2011 is 720 billion dollars, up 67 percent from 2001’s 432 billion, accounting for inflation.

In a recent speech to the U.S. Navy League, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pointed out examples of the effects of his country’s disproportionate spending.

The U.S. Navy can carry twice as many aircrafts at sea as the rest of the world put together, he said, and the navy’s overall power is estimated to exceed that of the next 13 most powerful navies combined.

This extreme dominance exists in all branches of the armed forces.

It is notable in the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation’s report that, while China and Russia are big spenders, defense spending comes overwhelmingly from the Western industrialized world.

The United States itself accounts for 44.32 percent of the global total spending of 1.57 trillion dollars, with the rest of NATO and non-NATO Europe accounting for another 22.43 percent.

The Middle East and North Africa, on the other hand, account for 7.03 percent, Latin America and the Caribbean for 3.69 percent, and Sub-Saharan Africa a mere 0.77 percent.

China and Russia account for 5.31 percent and 5.47 percent, respectively.

A study released in April by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) showed that Western industrialized countries strongly dominate arms manufacture, as well.

British Aerospace Systems is the largest arms manufacturer in the world, followed by four U.S.-based contractors.

Of the world’s top-20 manufacturers, only one, Russia’s Almaz-Antei, comes from a non-Western nation.

SIPRI’s Susan Jackson told IPS that companies in Western countries have a competitive advantage because of the higher level of technology available to them.

One non-Western country is missing from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation’s report: North Korea, which does not make reliable figures publicly available.

The U.S. State Department estimates that North Korea — a country in which up to 20 percent of men ages 17-54 are currently serving in the armed forces — spends up to one quarter of its Gross National Product on defense.

Another notable case is the Gulf Region in the Mideast.

While Middle Eastern countries account for a small percentage of worldwide defense spending, Gulf Cooperation Council countries — Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, and especially Saudi Arabia — have ramped up spending in recent years as fears grow about Iranian nuclear weapons development.

These fears are a major factor in Israel’s high defense spending as well, SIPRI’s Pieter Wezeman told IPS.

Defense spending remains high worldwide despite the global economic crisis. There is reason to believe that the recession’s effects may halt this growth, however.

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office has warned that increased debt will have to mean decreased spending across the board, with defense spending no exception.

With the United States by far the dominant spender, decreased U.S. spending would greatly affect total global spending.

"Swimming in its own tide of debt, the U.S., too, may soon be forced to restrain baseline Pentagon spending to just above the rate of inflation in the coming years," Dan Darling, Europe and Middle East Military Markets Analyst at Forecast International Inc., told IPS.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates concurs. "It is not a great mystery what needs to change," he said in his recent speech. "What it takes it the political will and willingness, as Eisenhower possessed, to make hard choices."

Thus far, however, as the new report shows, the economic crisis has not dampened outsized U.S. spending."

(Inter Press Service)


http://www.rebelnews.org/opinion/war/231081-us-military-spending-far-outpaces-rest-of-the-worldn

[elpressiedente]

obamanation was hired to totally destroy the amerikan "way"

N korea is chinas pawn

the gulf is but a pawn..

china has been selected by the illuminati to rule this century.

china is withholding strategic minerals used in advanced electronics...

the west will exhaust itself in battles in opium wars in smackghanistan, nth Korea, and elsewhere.

when exhausted the sun tzu taught masters will, by sheer numbers win...

murdoch doesnt have a chinese wife/child for nothing...

the pendulum swings back to the east. To survive visit asianfriendfinder.com

but the earth changes may alter not only the face of the planet, but the "planned" destiny of mankind.

either way are you ready?