you can’t ‘bury’ this indefinitely, even in the security council

The Real Story Behind Israel’s Invasion of Gaza
GoldstoneFacts.org

In this video, we distill out the findings of the Chapter 11(“Deliberate Attacks against the Civilian Population”) of the Goldstone Report to make it accessible to the lay public. The factual and legal findings are narrated by Noam Chomsky. The video also contains live testimonies of Khalid, Kawthar and Samar Abd Rabbo before the UN Fact-Finding Mission headed by Justice Richard Goldstone.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

how many missile plants are in california?

The reason I ask is that Tauscher was a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives for California’s 10th congressional district from 1997 until her resignation in 2009, see Wikipedia – RB

Romania: US Expands Missile Shield Into Black Sea
Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO, Feb 6 2010

When Romanian Pres Basescu disclosed on Feb 4 that his nation’s Supreme Defense Council had approved a US proposal that Romania takes part in the anti-rocket shield system and that terrestrial interceptors will be located inside the national territory, many readers may have been taken by surprise. They need not have been, though, as the expansion of the US global, layered, integrated interceptor missile system into the Black Sea was as foreseeable as it is inevitable. Later on the 4th, when a better translation of Basescu’s comments was available, the NYT confirmed that the Romanian head of state pledged that his nation “was prepared to negotiate with the US to accept ground-based interceptors as part of an antiballistic missile defense system. He said it could be working by 2015.” Basescu added that “the proposal accepted by the Supreme Defense Council came from Obama, whose under secretary of state for arms control and international security, Ellen O. Tauscher, was in Romania.” That he stipulated the year 2015 and mentioned the State Dept’s Tauscher are both significant facts. Tauscher signed the agreement with Polish Deputy DM Komorowski last December to deploy US mid-range interceptor missiles and troops to Poland. Two weeks ago Komorowski’s ministry announced that US Patriot missiles and troops would be stationed at a Baltic Sea site only 35 miles from Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave. Russia was no more pleased with that news than about US ground-based missiles being stationed in Romania, as will be seen later.

Keeping in mind Tauscher’s longstanding role in promoting US interceptor missile plans in Europe, which will be examined in detail further on, the State Dept nonetheless formally describes her role as Senior Adviser to the President and the Secretary of State for Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament. Last year, two days after Obama and Gates announced on the same day, Sep 17, that the US was abandoning plans to station ten ground-based interceptor missiles in Poland and transfer a modified X-band missile radar from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean to the Czech Republic, Gates described in the NYT the alternative project, what Obama characterized as a “stronger, swifter, and smarter” missile shield program far broader in scope and intent than his predecessor’s. Gates wrote of:

A three-phase plan that will begin with proven, sea-based SM-3 interceptor missiles, weapons that are growing in capability, then be followed by a second phase, which will become operational around 2015 and involve putting upgraded SM-3s on the ground in Southern and Central Europe. All told, every phase of this plan will include scores of SM-3 missiles, as opposed to the old plan of just 10 ground-based interceptors. Our military will continue research and development on a two-stage ground-based interceptor, the kind that was planned to be put in Poland, as a back-up.

The White House and the Pentagon had not retreated an inch on plans to establish an impenetrable missile shield along Russia’s western borders, one that could potentially threaten the nation’s strategic forces and disable its ability to retaliate and so credibly maintain a deterrence capability. In fact, as Gates explicitly stated, plans for ten ground-based midcourse missiles in Poland are to be superseded by several times more SM-3 and PAC-3 anti-ballistic missiles as well as a proposed 50,000lb mobile missile launcher and ground-based missiles in the final analysis anyway. Shortly after the official shift in US interceptor plans in Europe and beyond, into the Caucasus, the Middle East and even further, Tauscher put to rest hopes that even the Polish and Czech locations would be left out of wider-ranging plans. At a symposium hosted by the pro-NATO Atlantic Council, one also addressed by the head of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency Lieut-Gen O’Reilly, Tauscher delivered a speech which the WaPo commented on as follows:

Tauscher said discussions are already underway with Poland to base missiles there, and talks have begun with the Czech Republic about making it the headquarters for command and control elements associated with the system. Tauscher said European allies, who were initially troubled by the hasty announcement canceling the George W. Bush-era system, have come to support the Obama administration’s plan, which would permit earlier deployment and provide wider coverage than the earlier one. She was quoted as saying: “Remember, this is a NATO-wide European missile defense system as opposed to a bilateral missile defense system. There will be additional opportunities for allied countries to participate in missile defense. Another land-based radar system, which was also part of the Bush plan, for example, will need to be located in southeastern Europe.”

Not only missile radar but missiles themselves will be based in Southeastern Europe, substantially south of Poland and east of the Czech Republic. As the last head of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieut-Gen Obering, told a Pentagon gathering two years ago:

A powerful, forward-based X-band radar station could go in southeastern Europe, possibly in Turkey, the Caucasus or the Caspian Sea region.

There is nothing new and nothing unsurprising about the announcement that US interceptor missiles are headed to Romania. As for Tauscher, there is no discontinuity with her work, either. She came to her current position in the State Dept from that of chairperson of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee in Congress. During that tenure she was a consistently determined promoter of interceptor missile development and deployment. A brief chronology from the waning days of the G W Bush presidency will document the unimpeded continuation of her efforts from the Bush to the Obama administrations. On missiles in Poland:

I would feel better if this were a NATO framework we were operating in.

On global missile shield plans and space war:

Rejecting the recommendations of a sub-committee, Reps Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) and John Larson (D-CT) restored $150m to Pentagon ‘boost phase’ missile defense programs, $48m for future missile defense systems, including space sensors, $12m more for sea-based sensors and language to allow $160m for a highly controversial European missile defense site.

On expanding Bush’s missile plans to encompass all of Europe:

This is a crucial element for the US Congress. US missile defense must protect all NATO territories and be fully interoperable with the NATO system. We want more clarity about how these two systems can work together.

While in the Czech Republic:

The missile defence system must be fully incorporated in NATO and it must protect Europe and the US, Tauscher told a press conference today. Tauscher also said that the radar base could not operate without the missile base in Poland. She added that the anti-missile system to be stationed in the Czech Republic and Poland is to be connected with another system defending against other type of missiles. ‘We are looking for a system of systems,’ she said.

Back in Washington:

Tauscher told reporters Nov 8 that final congressional defense authorization language for fiscal 2008 should hew to her subcommittee’s drive to ‘NATOize’ US ballistic missile defense system efforts based in Europe. Speaking to defense writers in Washington, Tauscher said she would like to see US ground-based midcourse defense elements there, like a proposed radar in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptors for facilities in Poland, become the long-range aspect of a NATO system complimented by European short- and medium-range systems. Tauscher specifically named NATO’s Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense program, which could include the PAC-3, THAAD, and Aegis systems.

In Mar 2009, shortly before assuming her State Dept post for “promoting arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament”, she remained an avid proponent of missile deployments in Europe and stated:

We need to move in a NATOized way. Eventually we will develop a short- and medium-range system. We can certainly bolt on a long-range system once it has been tested.

She was back in Prague last November and beforehand said:

The command for the managing and control of elements of the new version of anti-missile defence could be stationed in the Czech Republic.

Tauscher’s project for a more sophisticated, diversified, mobile interceptor system in Europe and its expansion into the Middle East, integrated with all 28 NATO member states and doubtlessly with several key partners, is well on the way to realization. Neither Poland nor the Czech Republic are excluded from the designs; rather the number of nations pulled into Washington’s missile shield network will be increased in number and in geographical range. The first steps have been taken in the Baltic Sea, with US PAC-3 missiles and troops to arrive as early as next month and Aegis class warships with SM-3 interceptors not far behind. The USS Cole, upgraded to an Aegis-equipped guided missile destroyer, made port calls to the capitals of Estonia and Finland in the Baltic Sea region last November. Also last year the guided-missile destroyer USS Stout visited the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea “in support of Navy Ballistic Missile Defense,” visiting Israel, Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, and Turkey (the last four Black Sea littoral nations) and engaging in maneuvers with the Georgian navy “seen as a show of US support for the former Soviet nation crushed in last year’s war with Russia.”

In the latter half of 2009, the Pentagon’s Joint Task Force East conducted almost three months of military exercises in Romania and neighboring Bulgaria which included training for US Stryker and airborne units. In October, it was reported that the Pentagon will spend $110m to upgrade two of the seven bases it has acquired in Romania and Bulgaria since 2005; the revamped bases will house over 4,000 US troops. In October, Vice-Pres Biden was in the Romanian capital on a tour that also took him to Poland and the Czech Republic and met with President Basescu, telling him, “I really appreciate your government’s embrace of the new missile defence architecture we are bringing to Europe. It is a better architecture and has the benefit of protecting you as well as the US.” He also reiterated that “Under Article 5, an attack on one is an attack against all,” according to the Pentagon’s website. At the time of Biden’s Romanian visit a US army official in Romania stated:

A US military base near the Black Sea port of Constanta will become a permanent facility in the spring.

A Romanian publication ran a column in November of last year that foreshadowed this week’s news concerning US missile shield deployments in the nation, saying:

A strong and modern surveillance system located in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey could monitor three hot areas at once: the Black Sea, the Caucasus and the Caspian and relevant zones in the Middle East. Turkey is very unlikely to host a land-based SM-3 system, because it would not dare position itself so aggressively against its Iranian neighbour. This would make Greece, Bulgaria or Romania contenders, and with Biden making the recent visit to Bucharest as opposed to Sofia or Athens in the context of discussions on security architecture, Romania appears to be a more likely location. By 2011, the Pentagon will roll out its naval anti-ballistic missile system on cruisers and destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean. These ships will be equipped with Lockheed Martin’s Aegis system, containing anti-aircraft and anti-missile radar and weaponry. The ships contain mid to long range SM-3 missiles. The Constanta port and naval facilities, plus Bulgaria with its Burgas port, could be good platforms for a military naval base.

As an indication of how the bases can be used, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq in Mar 2003, AFP reported:

An air of secrecy surrounds the arrival of thousands of US military personnel at the Romanian Black Sea port of Constanta in preparation for a war on Iraq. Ten giant Hercules C-130 transport aircraft and four H-53 helicopters can be seen parked at a military airbase adjacent to the local civilian airport.

A Romanian source was quoted at the time as saying, “We are NATO’s advance post in the east.” The base in question is the Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base north of Constanta, the main headquarters of the Pentagon’s Joint Task Force East. When it first became evident that the US was moving into and taking over four military bases in Romania (and three in Bulgaria) for training and deployment for wars in the east, in 2007, then Pres Putin said:

New base in Bulgaria, another in Romania. What are we supposed to do? We cannot just observe all this.

FM Lavrov echoed the concern, stating:

Russia finds it hard to understand some decisions of NATO like, for example, the deployment of US military facilities in Bulgaria and Romania.

When Romania’s Pres Basescu revealed US missile shield plans for his nation on Feb 4, Lavrov again spoke out and said:

We expect the US to provide an exhaustive explanation, taking into account the fact that the Black Sea regime is regulated by the Montreux Convention.

The Montreux Convention prohibits warships of non-Black Sea nations from staying in the Black Sea longer than 21 days and bans the deployment of outside nations’ aircraft carriers. Russian envoy to NATO Rogozin was more detailed and more direct in his assessment:

Maybe it’s against Iran, but that same system can be targeted against any other country, including Russia’s strategic nuclear potential. The US is using Iran’s actions to globalize its system of missile defense. Our military shouldn’t believe some promises or intentions. We need to go on the assumption that a foreign military potential is approaching our borders.

On Feb 5, RIA Novosti quoted the editor-in-chief of the National Defense magazine, Col (Retd) Korotchenko, who said:

Russia must warn Romania that if the elements of the US missile shield are placed in the country they will become a target of Russia’s preventive missile strikes. With ship-based SM-3s in the North, Black and Mediterranean seas, and mobile land-based SM-3s in Central Europe the western borders of Russia would be surrounded by US missile interceptors by 2015.

At the same time Sec Def Gates arrived in Turkey for two days of meetings with fellow NATO defense chiefs and it was reported that he would “urge European allies to inject more funding into NATO with a focus on Afghanistan and priorities such as missile defense.” On Feb 5, Russian Pres Medvedev approved his nation’s new military doctrine, which according to Reuters identifies NATO expansion as a national threat, saying:

The doctrine identifies the expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe and US plans to create an anti-missile shield in Europe as concerns for national security.

The two are inextricably connected and unless both are halted US military provocations in the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea and the South Caucasus may lead to a new European conflagration.

all that chinese money, when will it end?

The 700 Military Bases of Afghanistan
Black Sites in the Empire of Bases
Nick Turse, Tomgram, Feb 9 2010

In the nineteenth century, it was a fort used by British forces.  In the twentieth century, Soviet troops moved into the crumbling facilities.  In Dec 2009, at this site in the Shinwar district of Afghanistan’s Nangarhar Province, US troops joined members of the Afghan National Army in preparing the way for the next round of foreign occupation.  On its grounds, a new military base is expected to rise, one of hundreds of camps and outposts scattered across the country. Nearly a decade after the Bush administration launched its invasion of Afghanistan, TomDispatch offers the first actual count of US, NATO, and other coalition bases there, as well as facilities used by the Afghan security forces.  Such bases range from relatively small sites like Shinwar to mega-bases that resemble small US towns.  Today, according to official sources, approximately 700 bases of every size dot the Afghan countryside, and more, like the one in Shinwar, are under construction or soon will be as part of a base-building boom that began last year. Existing in the shadows, rarely reported on and little talked about, this base-building program is nonetheless staggering in size and scope, and heavily dependent on supplies imported from abroad, which means that it is also extraordinarily expensive.  It has added significantly to the already long secret list of Pentagon property overseas and raises questions about just how long, after the planned beginning of a drawdown of US forces in 2011, the US will still be garrisoning Afghanistan.

A spokesman for ISAF tells TomDispatch that there are, at present, nearly 400 US and coalition bases in Afghanistan, including camps, forward operating bases, and combat outposts.  In addition, there are at least 300 Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) bases, most of them built, maintained, or supported by the US.  A small number of the coalition sites are mega-bases like Kandahar Airfield, which boasts one of the busiest runways in the world, and Bagram Air Base, a former Soviet facility that received a makeover, complete with Burger King and Popeyes outlets, and now serves more than 20,000 US troops, in addition to thousands of coalition forces and civilian contractors. In fact, Kandahar, which housed 9,000 coalition troops as recently as 2007, is expected to have a population of as many as 35,000 troops by the time President Obama’s surge is complete, according to Col Wilson who oversees building efforts in the southern half of Afghanistan for the US Army Corps of Engineers.  On the other hand, the Shinwar site, according to Sgt Smith of the US 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, will be a small forward operating base (FOB) that will host both Afghan troops and foreign forces.

Last fall, it was reported that more than $200m in construction projects, from barracks to cargo storage facilities, were planned for or in-progress at Bagram.  Substantial construction funds have also been set aside by the USAF to upgrade its air power capacity at Kandahar.  For example, $65m has been allocated to build additional apron space (where aircraft can be parked, serviced, and loaded or unloaded) to accommodate more close-air support for soldiers in the field and a greater intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability.  Another $61m has also been earmarked for the construction of a cargo helicopter apron and a tactical airlift apron there. Kandahar is just one of many sites currently being upgraded.  Exact figures on the number of facilities being enlarged, improved, or hardened are unavailable but, according a spokesman for ISAF, the military plans to expand several more bases to accommodate the increase of troops as part of McChrystal’s surge strategy.  In addition, at least 12 more bases are slated to be built to help handle the 30,000 extra US troops and thousands of NATO forces beginning to arrive in the country. Col Wilson says:

Currently we have over $3b worth of work going on in Afghanistan, and probably by the summer, when the dust settles from all the uplift, we’ll have about $1.3b to $1.4b worth of that.

By comparison, between 2002 and 2008, the Army Corps of Engineers spent more than $4.5b on construction projects, most of it base-building, in Afghanistan. At the site of the future FOB in Shinwar, more than 135 private construction contractors attended what was termed an “Afghan-Coalition contractors rodeo.”  According to Lieut Roach, a contracting officer with the US Army’s Task Force Mountain Warrior, the event was designed “to give potential contractors a walkthrough of the area so they’ll have a solid overview of the scope of work.”  The construction firms then bid on three separate projects: the renovation of the more than 30-year old Soviet facilities, the building of new living quarters for Afghan and coalition forces, and the construction of a 2km wall for the base. In the weeks since the “rodeo,” the US Army has announced additional plans to upgrade facilities at other forward operating bases.  At FOB Airborne, located near Kane-Ezzat in Wardak Province, for instance, the Army intends to put in reinforced concrete bunkers and blast protection barriers as well as lay concrete foundations for Re-Locatable Buildings (prefabricated, trailer-like structures used for living and working quarters).  Similar work is also scheduled for FOB Altimur, an Army camp in Logar Province.

Recently, the US Army Corps of Engineers, Afghanistan District-Kabul, announced that it would be seeking bids on “site assessments” for Afghan National Security Forces District Headquarters Facilities nationwide.  The precise number of Afghan bases scattered throughout the country is unclear. When asked by TomDispatch, Colonel Radmanish of the Afghan Ministry of Defense would state only that major bases were located in Kabul, Pakteya, Kandahar, Herat, and Mazar-e-Sharif, and that ANA units operate all across Afghanistan.  Recent US Army contracts for maintenance services provided to Afghan army and police bases, however, suggest that there are no fewer than 300 such facilities that are, according to an ISAF spokesman, not counted among the coalition base inventory. As opposed to the US’s fast-food-franchise-filled bases, Afghan ones are often decidedly more rustic affairs.  The police headquarters in Khost Farang District, Baghlan Province, is a good example.  According to a detailed site assessment conducted by a local contractor for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Afghan government, the district headquarters consists of mud and stone buildings surrounded by a mud wall.  The site even lacks a deep well for water.  A trench fed by a nearby spring is the only convenient water source. The US bases that most resemble austere Afghan facilities are combat outposts, also known as COPs.  Environmental Specialist Bell of the Army Corps of Engineers, Afghanistan Engineer District-South’s Real Estate Division, recently described the facilities and life on such a base as he and his co-worker, Realty Specialist Salazar, saw it in late 2009:

COP Sangar is a compound surrounded by mud and straw walls. Tents with cots supplied the sleeping quarters. A medical, pharmacy and command post tent occupied the center of the COP, complete with a few computers with internet access and three primitive operating tables. Showers had just been installed with hot only available from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. An MWR [Morale, Welfare and Recreation] tent was erected on Thanksgiving Day with an operating television; however, the tent was rarely used due to the cold. Most of the troops used a tent with gym equipment for recreation. A cook trailer provided a hot simple breakfast and supper. Lunch was MREs [meals ready to eat]. Nights were pitch black with no outside lighting from the base or the city.

According to an official site assessment, future construction at the Khost Farang District police headquarters will make use of sand, gravel, and stone, all available on the spot.  Additionally, cement, steel, bricks, lime, and gypsum have been located for purchase in Pol-e Khomri City, about 85 miles away. Constructing a base for American troops, however, is another matter.  For the far less modest needs of US troops, builders rely heavily on goods imported over extremely long, difficult to traverse, and sometimes embattled supply lines, all of which adds up to an extraordinarily costly affair. Lieut-General Van Antwerp, commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, told an audience at a town hall meeting in Afghanistan in Dec 2009:

Our business runs on materials. You have to bring in the lumber, you have to bring in the steel, you have to bring in the containers and all that. Transport isn’t easy in this country: number one, the roads themselves, number two, coming through other countries to get here; there are just huge challenges in getting the materials here.

To facilitate US base construction projects, a new “virtual storefront”, an online shopping portal, has been launched by the Pentagon’s Defense Logistics Agency (DLA).  The Maintenance, Repair and Operations Uzbekistan Virtual Storefront website and a defense contractor-owned and operated brick-and-mortar warehouse facility that supports it aim to provide regionally-produced construction materials to speed surge-accelerated building efforts. From a facility located in Termez, Uzbekistan, cement, concrete, fencing, roofing, rope, sand, steel, gutters, pipe, and other construction material manufactured in countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan can be rushed to nearby Afghanistan to accelerate base-building efforts. DLA construction and equipment supply chain division chief Evanitsky says:

Having the products closer to the fight will make it easier for warfighters by reducing logistics response and delivery time.

The Pentagon’s most recent inventory of bases lists a total of 716 overseas sites.  These include facilities owned and leased all across the Middle East as well as a significant presence in Europe and Asia, especially Japan and South Korea.  Perhaps even more notable than the Pentagon’s impressive public foreign property portfolio are the many sites left off the official inventory.  While bases in the Persian Gulf countries of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates are all listed, one conspicuously absent site is Al-Udeid Air Base, a billion-dollar facility in nearby Qatar, where the USAF secretly oversees its on-going unmanned drone wars. The count also does not include any sites in Iraq where, as of Aug 2009, there were still nearly 300 US bases and outposts.  Similarly, US bases in Afghanistan, a significant percentage of the 400 foreign sites scattered across the country, are noticeably absent from the Pentagon inventory. Counting the remaining bases in Iraq (as many as 50 are slated to be operating after Obama’s Aug 31 2010, deadline to remove all US “combat troops” from the country) and those in Afghanistan, as well as black sites like Al-Udeid, the total number of US bases overseas now must significantly exceed 1,000.  Just exactly how many US military bases (and allied facilities used by US forces) are scattered across the globe may never be publicly known.  What we do know from the experience of bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea is that, once built, they have a tendency toward permanency that a cessation of hostilities, or even outright peace, has a way of not altering. After nearly a decade of war, close to 700 US, allied, and Afghan military bases dot Afghanistan.  Until now, however, they have existed as black sites known to few USAians outside the Pentagon.  It remains to be seen, a decade into the future, how many of these sites will still be occupied by US and allied troops and whose flag will be planted on the ever-shifting British-Soviet-US/Afghan site at Shinwar.

some people are just so offensively stupid (and rasmussen is one of them)

NATO Chief ‘Surprised’ By Russia’s Listing Alliance As Threat
RFE/RL, Feb 6 2010

NATO Sec-Gen Rasmussen today expressed surprise that Russia still considers the military alliance a major security threat. Rasmussen, speaking on the sidelines of a security conference in Munich, said:

I have to say that this new doctrine does not reflect the real world. To make NATO the main threat to Russia simply doesn’t reflect realities. NATO is not an enemy of Russia. On the contrary, we want to develop a strategic partnership with Russia, and I will continue on that path, and I will make that clear in my talks with Russian FM Lavrov.

His reaction comes a day after Russian Pres Medvedev signed a new version of Russia’s main military strategy document, which names NATO expansion as one of Russia’s chief threats.

ha ha, a much too good to be true jihadist website

Notice, it supplies videos — these your local anti-terrorist brigades can bust you merrily for. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan!

never mind the OSCE, we’ve got the US behind us

Ukraine’s Tymoshenko bloc to contest election result
BBC, Feb 9 2010

Yulia Tymoshenko’s bloc has said it will contest in court the conduct of the Ukrainian presidential election she appears to have narrowly lost. Deputy leader Elena Shustik said the bloc would contest results at some polling stations and ask for a recount, Interfax reports. Another bloc official accused Viktor Yanukovych’s party of “falsification”, Reuters says. However, foreign monitors have praised the conduct of the election. With more than 99% of votes counted after Sunday’s poll, Yanukovych was estimated to be ahead on some 48.83% of the vote, while Tymoshenko had around 45.59%. Shustik was quoted as saying that the bloc would “challenge the results at certain polling-stations and seek a recount”. The bloc had not yet decided, she added, whether it would pursue a third round of voting. In Ukraine’s parliament, bloc member Serhiy Sobolev told MPs:

Voting day displayed a cynical violation of Ukrainian law by the teams of Yanukovych, pressure on the electors and a broad arsenal of falsification by the Regions Party of Viktor Yanukovych. Consequently, the Tymoshenko bloc announces that we will defend in the courts our right, and the rights of our citizens, to honest and transparent elections.

However, there was no mention of calling street protests, Reuters notes.

ha ha, what fun, let’s destroy the world

Israel and the US preparing for Iran
Part One: The Military Perspective
Peter Eyre, Palestine Telegraph, Feb 8 2010

This year saw an Israeli-US joint exercise “Juniper Cobra 10″ take place off the coast of Israel which involved the IDF and the US Navy 6th Fleet. The purpose of the exercise was to participate in countering simulated attacks by ballistic, medium-range and short-range missiles and rockets by Iran on Israel. As part of this build up the US military has more than doubled its stockpile of weapons in Israel which, it states, Israel can use. One would assume that just like the preparation in the build up to the Lebanon Crisis in 2006 and pre Cast Lead in 2008, this is a very clear indication that both the US and Israel are preparing for a strike on the nuclear facilities in Iran. The US Navy already has a significant naval force in the Gulf and we are now seeing the slow deployment of Israeli naval vessels into the region. In order for the Israeli Navy to position to such a location it requires the permission of the Gulf States to enter their waters. One cannot fully understand how these Islamic States could allow Israeli vessels to transit their zone with the intention of carrying out an attack on another Islamic country (Iran). Nothing surprises me anymore when we saw those same states turn their back on Gaza and Palestine. What I find amazing is that the UN and the world looks on without saying a word, knowing that this action will probably take place as soon as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator is ready for operational use. The Pentagon has been applying extreme pressure on Boeing to bring forward the development and testing of this massive bomb by Jun 2010, almost two years ahead of intended operations. It may also be the US intention to make use of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, which was intended for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is my understanding that this is not just a simple action, to take out nuclear facilities, but rather an extremely dangerous situation that could not only lead to a major action or war but also cause catastrophic radiation contamination of the entire Middle East and the World. I will cover the environmental aspect in Part 2, followed by Part 3 which will cover the economic damage that such action would cause to the UK and EU economies.

Militarily speaking, this possible strike can erupt into a full-scale war, on the proviso that if Israel and the US attack Iran that would be considered an act of war resulting in retaliatory action by the Iranian on Israeli and US targets. Make no bones about it, Iran has a significant high-tech military that can cause much damage on the invaders and once that step has been taken the US would then carry out further attacks resulting in war. My guess would be this is what the US, UK and NATO countries really want, which is a regime change. Heard that before in Iraq and Afghanistan?

With the new NATO ground rules clearly in place “An attack on one is an attack on all,” or what has recently been added to the rules “An attack on any military facility, oil/gas facility, pipeline or any other commercial entity is an attack on all,” we can, as usual, see how the US can carefully manipulate this action into a total NATO involvement, or should I say a possible WW3. I must emphasize that any such action by the US and Israel would be totally irresponsible, leading to the possible death of millions of people in the region. So let’s again look at this very dangerous and complicated military scenario that is starting to unfold, and fully understand who has to be involved in carrying out such an attack and the risks associated with its implementation. First of all, this type of operation is pushing the safety envelope of the Israeli Air Force to its maximum and can only be achieved with the involvement of the US military. None of the existing IAF aircraft can make such a long-range flight without transiting other Islamic States, stopping for fuel or in having in flight refueling provided by the US. The massive US-fed munitions stockpile currently in Israel would be utilized by the IAF and they would have to take maximum weapons payload with minimum fuel. This mission would test both aircraft and their crews to the maximum with the main purpose of delivering their deadly payload to target and with no room to detour or carry out a defensive role if attacked by any Iranian aircraft. It would clearly mean that some of the Israeli aircraft would not return as a result of this high-risk operation.

The weapons stockpiled by the US in Israel also contain weapons with uranium components such as “Bunker Buster” etc., and the combination of such weapons hitting a nuclear facility would lead to terrible consequences in the Middle East. Then we have the question of the MOP, which is specifically being tested for use in Iran. This bomb has the potential to not only cause catastrophic damage but also has the ability to set off earthquakes in the region. All of the above weapons in that context could be classified as WMDs, and are totally indiscriminate in their application and thus are in breach of the Geneva Convention as well as breaching many other international laws. We have heard rumours that such weapons as the MOP and other penetrating-type weapons could have triggered the earthquakes in California and also Haiti. Any weapon of this size when it enters the earth crust sends huge shockwaves deep into the earth, and should this be in an area of existing rifts, the resultant aftermath is self-explanatory. Let’s now look at this evil bomb currently under test in the US. The MOP is around 20.5ft long and a total weight of just under 30,000lbs. The weapon carries 5,300lbs of explosives. It is carried aboard a USAF B-2 Bomber and is guided to its target by its onboard GPS. Reader will note that the only aircraft capable of carrying this weapon is the USAF B-2 Stealth Bomber and therefore if Israel attacks Iran, which is what the US wants them to do, then the US will definitely be involved in the delivery of this bomb. The B-2 will be able to carry two MOP’s and thus would be a prime target to attack as it approached Iranian airspace. The B-2 would fly at high altitude and release the weapons some distance from target.

It is also my belief that whilst Israel and the US are on a war footing they may also possibly carry out strikes on Gaza, Lebanon and Syria during 2010. As with all conflicts the whole purpose is to divide and conquer, and Israel is right in the middle of a very unstable area. Should they choose to carry out such action I am sure this could well see the end of Israel. Part 2 of this series will cover the environmental aspect of such an attack. It will show how the catastrophic fallout will initially consume the entire Middle East, from Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India and from North of the Caspian Sea to the Gulf of Aden, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, China, Nepal, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Yemen. Not one country in the Middle East will be spared. All of this contamination will take place within the first couple of days and within 7-10 days will be around the world. I ask the UN, UK, EU, Russia, China, Japan and all of the above countries to address this problem with the utmost urgency and ensure that the US and Israel do not attack Iran and that diplomacy without threat is the only way to come to some compromise. Maybe if the US and the rest of the world applied the same pressure on Israel as they do on Iran we may see fair play. Surely if Israel has unlimited and uncontrolled nuclear capabilities they would be considered a threat to the Islamic world so common sense must prevail here. As it stands at the moment it is just pure US/Israeli aggression as we have seen so many times before.

who cares what gates is ‘concerned’ by

Gates Voices Concern About Warship Sale to Russia
Thom Shenker, NYT, Feb 8 2010

Def Sec Gates told French officials Monday that he was concerned about their plans to sell Mistral-class amphibious assault ships to Russia, although there is little if anything the US could do to block the deal, officials said. Russia has been engaged in negotiations for months over what would be the first significant purchase of advanced NATO weaponry since the collapse of communism. Each Mistral warship costs up to $750m, and the vessels, which can launch helicopters and armored vehicles, would be viewed as a notable addition to the Kremlin’s rusting fleet. Gates chose the well-known diplomatic code for disagreement in describing his discussion of the arms sale with his French counterpart, DM Morin, saying:

I think I would just say that we had a good and thorough exchange of views.

Pentagon press secretary Morrell said later that Gates’s meetings here were “very amicable and positive” on issues that included the NATO effort in Afghanistan, but that Gates “made our concerns very clear” on the arms sale. The weapons deal has raised alarm in capitals across formerly Soviet territory, in particular in the republic of Georgia, which fought a war with Russia and sees the vessels as a threat that could be based in the Black Sea off its shores. The maritime Baltic states, also former Soviet republics, have sought information from France about what weapons and advanced technology would be included. But Morin emphasized that the cold war was long over, and that Russia is a changed nation. He said that if Moscow is to be viewed as a partner in global stability, then there should be no objections to the French sale:

We can’t have a double discourse of saying they are partners and then talking about relations with Russia as if it were pre-1991.

He acknowledged however, that “scars” of the Soviet era are still present in some nations of eastern and central Europe. French officials have agreed to sell one of the ships to Russia and are discussing a deal for three others, according to news reports in France.

well, it’s true: israel is clearly run by loonies

Iran FM: Israel is a crazy country run by crazy people
Haaretz, Feb 8 2010

Iranian FM Mottaki declared Monday that Israel was now weaker than ever before, adding that it was a “crazy country run by crazy people.” Mottaki told Al-Jazeera that Israel was in no position to embark on another military conflict, due to its internal political crisis and its losses over recent years in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Mottaki declares:

Israel is a crazy nation run by crazy people. Therefore, we must prepare for the chance that Israel will do something crazy against everyone in the region: the Syrians, the Lebanese and the Palestinians.

When asked what would happen should Israel attack Iran, Mottaki replied:

Iran’s position is known by everyone. We can defend ourselves.

The Iranian FM added that the Islamic Republic would “stand by our Arab brothers” should Israel attack any of its neighbors. Mottaki’s remarks came after Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said that Western support of Israel was ineffective, telling a top Palestinian militant leader that its obliteration was imminent according to the will of God. Ayatollah Khamenei told Ramadan Abdullah, the secretary general of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement:

Today Palestine is the symbol of life, determination, faithfulness, diligence, and dignity.

He praised the Palestinian resistance movement and declared that it had proven itself stronger despite the military superiority of the IDF. In his comments, Khameini joined a long list of top Iranian officials, especially Pres Ahmadinejad, who have said on several occasions in the past that Israel should be destroyed. Last year, Ahmadinejad said that Israel was “dying” and that people in the Middle East would destroy it if given the chance and stressed that opposition to Israel is a fundamental principle in Shi’ite Muslim Iran. Ahmadinejad said:

They should know that regional nations hate this fake and criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to regional nations they will destroy it.

Also, a senior Iranian army commander said Iran will respond to any military attack from Israel by “eliminating” it, in comments condemned by Washington.

yemeni al-CIA-duh usefully quacks like a duck, implicates houthis

Yemeni al-Qaeda Calls for Regional Jihad
Jason Ditz, AntiWar.com, Feb 8 2010

The second in command of the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), Saeed al-Shehri, was heard in an audio tape today urging muslims in the region to wage jihad against the Western influences, which he accused of plotting an “ideological war” in the region at a recent London conference. The Yemen-based AQAP has been fighting a growing war against the US-backed Saleh government, just one of several clashes the Yemeni government is engaged in. The audio tape accused the US of taking a direct role in the conflict, accusing them of killing civilians in drone strikes. Though the US did launch cruise missiles against Yemen in December, it has so far not confirmed any drone strikes. The audio tape also appeared to confirm that al-Shehri, who the Yemeni government claimed to have killed last month, actually survived as AQAP has insisted all along. But perhaps the more surprising development was that Shehri addressed the call by name to several Yemeni tribes, including an apparent reference to the Houthi tribe in the north. The Houthis, who have been fighting a civil war against the Yemeni government and the Saudi government, are exclusively Shi’ite. That an al-Qaeda affiliate is exhorting cooperation from a Shi’ite group is an unprecedented development, as the Sunni millitant group has often targeted Shi’ites across the Muslim world as apostates.