A New York Times report announcing the US has found $1 trillion-worth of mineral deposits in Afghanistan has some observers wondering if the news is part of a public-relations effort to bolster support for the Afghanistan war as the mission's death toll continues to climb.
An article in Sunday's New York Times announces that "previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
The article cites an "internal Pentagon memo" as saying Afghanistan could become the "Saudi Arabia of lithium" -- the mineral used in the production of rechargeable batteries, such as those found in cell phones and laptops. It cites "a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists" as having made the discovery.
While the dollar estimate -- $1 trillion -- may be new, it's hardly news that Afghanistan sits on rich mineral deposits. In a 2007 press release, the US Geological Survey announced that Afghanistan possesses "significant amounts of undiscovered non-fuel mineral resources." And, as Marc Ambinder reports on his Atlantic blog, the Soviet Union was aware of Afghanistan's mineral potential as early as 1985.
“The ‘discovery’ of Afghanistan’s minerals will sound pretty silly to old timers,” a "retired former senior US official" tells Politico's Laura Rosen. “When I was living in Kabul in the early 1970’s the [US government], the Russians, the World Bank, the UN and others were all highly focused on the wide range of Afghan mineral deposits. Cheap ways of moving the ore to ocean ports has always been the limiting factor.”
So why is this news now? To many, the story's timing suggests a Pentagon public relations campaign designed to extend public support for the war with the hope that, in time, Afghanistan may be able to raise itself out of abject poverty.
"Why the story broke in the NYT on Sunday could be linked to a desire by the Pentagon to create a reason why US troops might want to stick around in Afghanistan for some time to come," writes Paul Jay at the Huffington Post. "Things are not going very well on the ground and the promise of vast mineral riches would sound enticing."
Some "veteran Afghan hands detect an echo of [Gen. David] Petraeus’ effort to 'put a little more time on the Washington clock' for the Afghanistan surge, as he once described his public relations strategy to buy time in the US for the Iraq surge," Rosen reports.
Indeed, the US military's need to shore up support for the war effort may be becoming critical. Recent news reports indicate that Afghan President Hamid Karzai may have lost his faith in the US military's ability to carry out the war. And Gareth Porter at IPS reports that US forces are facing "the spectre of a collapse of U.S. political support for the war in Afghanistan in coming months comparable to the one that occurred in the Iraq War in late 2006."
That context leads blogger Steve Hynd to declare that the Times piece is "a conveniently timed zombie story" that was "resurrected yet again for political purposes."
Even if one were to take the Times story at face value, the practical benefits of Afghanistan's mineral deposits are in doubt -- not least because of the country's weak central government, corruption and a lack of skilled labor.
"Under even the rosiest scenarios, it does not appear the new wealth will change dynamics quickly enough in Afghanistan to aid the US military effort there," reports Alan Greenblatt at NPR.
[Daniel] Markey [of the Council on Foreign Relations] says he's nervous that Afghanistan will fall prey to the "resource curse," under which nations that base their economies primarily on natural resources fall prey to conflict and corruption — forces that are already endemic in Afghanistan.
"Afghanistan can make a lot of money from this, but this is the way to make money that attracts corruption," says S. Frederick Starr, chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University.
"A scramble for Afghanistan's resources would simply intensify the tribal warfare that's already taking place in that devastated country," writes Jacob Heilbrun at the Huffington Post. "The sad truth is that precious natural resources are, more often than not, a curse for the Third World nations that harbor them."
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Blackwater (Xe Services LLC )
Blackwater a private military company providing services to the Unites States Federal Government was founded as Blackwater Usa in 1997 by Erik Prince and Al Clark. Blackwater was hired by the US government on a no-bid contract basis basically meaning they have no competitors to apply to a particular contract.
Many people have no idea whether these types of companies exist at all, but definitely they do and basically when they are out there in the thick of things they usually do not follow any rules and they think that they are above the law. These mercenaries have to be reigned in, but either intentionally or unintentionally they do not face the music of justice. These companies are always making a profit as they have nothing to do with the economy going up or down, as they are hired by the governments irrespective of war or peace. They are also not liable to face any consequences for their action as they provide major funding to the Republican parties and donate very handsomely so as to procure these very profitablecontracts.
Facts and controversies
- Blackwater Worldwide in 2003 received its first high-profile contract when it received a $21 million no-bid contract for guarding the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul Bremer.
- Blackwater had 20,000 - 30,000 armed security personnel posted in Iraq. (conflicting reports of 100,000 armed personnel).
- Blackwater received $1 billion 5 year contract from the State Department.
- Blackwater has confirmed that Bosnians, Filipinos, and Chileans "have also been hired for tasks ranging from airport security to protecting Diplomats"
- On March 31, 2004, Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah attacked a convoy containing four American private military contractors Scott Helvenston, Jerry Zovko, Wesley Batalona and Michael Teague, from Blackwater USA. They were attacked and killed with grenades and small arms fire, and their bodies were hung from a bridge crossing the Euphrates. This event was one of the causes of the U.S. military attack on the city in the First Battle of Fallujah. In the fall of 2007, a congressional report by the House Oversight Committee found that Blackwater intentionally "delayed and impeded" investigations into the contractors' deaths.
- In 2005 Blackwater escorting a US convoy fired 70 bullets into an Iraqi national driven car, where Blackwater operatives claimed that they were threatened by the approaching car.
- In 2006 Blackwater were involved in a car accident which occurred in the Baghdad Green Zone.
- Christmas eve massacre of the guard of Iraqi vice president Adel Abdul Mahdi was shot dead while on duty in the compound. The Iraqi government has accused Andrew J. Moonen of being drunk at the time.
- A sniper employed by Blackwater Worldwide opened fire from the roof of the Iraqi Justice Ministry, killing three guards working for the state- funded Iraqi Media Network in 2006.
- Blackwater license was revoked by the State Department but were given back their license within months of revoking it.
- Blackwater are paid almost 7 times the amount that a normal US army soldier gets in salaries.
- An Iraqi politician, Ayham al-Samarie, escaped from a prison in Iraq, where he was awaiting trial for 12 criminal corruption cases. Blackwater, which he had hired for protection before his arrest, allegedly helped him escape.
famous quote: During his testimony on Capitol Hill, Erik Prince disputed this figure, saying that it costs money for the government to train a soldier, to house and feed them, they don't just come prepared to fight. "That sergeant doesn't show up naked and untrained", Prince stated.
Triple Canopy, Inc. has replaced Xe/Blackwater with regards to the State department contract to operate in Iraq but it is claimed that Blackwater still would benefit as the subcontracts which are going to be awarded by Triple Canopy Inc. indirectly would land into the lap of Blackwater.
Many people have no idea whether these types of companies exist at all, but definitely they do and basically when they are out there in the thick of things they usually do not follow any rules and they think that they are above the law. These mercenaries have to be reigned in, but either intentionally or unintentionally they do not face the music of justice. These companies are always making a profit as they have nothing to do with the economy going up or down, as they are hired by the governments irrespective of war or peace. They are also not liable to face any consequences for their action as they provide major funding to the Republican parties and donate very handsomely so as to procure these very profitablecontracts.
Facts and controversies
- Blackwater Worldwide in 2003 received its first high-profile contract when it received a $21 million no-bid contract for guarding the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul Bremer.
- Blackwater had 20,000 - 30,000 armed security personnel posted in Iraq. (conflicting reports of 100,000 armed personnel).
- Blackwater received $1 billion 5 year contract from the State Department.
- Blackwater has confirmed that Bosnians, Filipinos, and Chileans "have also been hired for tasks ranging from airport security to protecting Diplomats"
- On March 31, 2004, Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah attacked a convoy containing four American private military contractors Scott Helvenston, Jerry Zovko, Wesley Batalona and Michael Teague, from Blackwater USA. They were attacked and killed with grenades and small arms fire, and their bodies were hung from a bridge crossing the Euphrates. This event was one of the causes of the U.S. military attack on the city in the First Battle of Fallujah. In the fall of 2007, a congressional report by the House Oversight Committee found that Blackwater intentionally "delayed and impeded" investigations into the contractors' deaths.
- In 2005 Blackwater escorting a US convoy fired 70 bullets into an Iraqi national driven car, where Blackwater operatives claimed that they were threatened by the approaching car.
- In 2006 Blackwater were involved in a car accident which occurred in the Baghdad Green Zone.
- Christmas eve massacre of the guard of Iraqi vice president Adel Abdul Mahdi was shot dead while on duty in the compound. The Iraqi government has accused Andrew J. Moonen of being drunk at the time.
- A sniper employed by Blackwater Worldwide opened fire from the roof of the Iraqi Justice Ministry, killing three guards working for the state- funded Iraqi Media Network in 2006.
- Blackwater license was revoked by the State Department but were given back their license within months of revoking it.
- Blackwater are paid almost 7 times the amount that a normal US army soldier gets in salaries.
- An Iraqi politician, Ayham al-Samarie, escaped from a prison in Iraq, where he was awaiting trial for 12 criminal corruption cases. Blackwater, which he had hired for protection before his arrest, allegedly helped him escape.
famous quote: During his testimony on Capitol Hill, Erik Prince disputed this figure, saying that it costs money for the government to train a soldier, to house and feed them, they don't just come prepared to fight. "That sergeant doesn't show up naked and untrained", Prince stated.
Triple Canopy, Inc. has replaced Xe/Blackwater with regards to the State department contract to operate in Iraq but it is claimed that Blackwater still would benefit as the subcontracts which are going to be awarded by Triple Canopy Inc. indirectly would land into the lap of Blackwater.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Terrorism: Made in the U.S.A.by Sheldon Richman,
It’s a perilous world, as our so-called leaders love to remind us. And for a change they’re right. It is a perilous world. But guess who is most responsible for the peril to Americans? Those very same “leaders” and a long line of predecessors.
Moreover, they — along with anyone else who takes time to examine the matter — know that they create the greatest dangers Americans face. They just don’t care. They have bigger fish to fry than keeping Americans safe. Besides, the dangers they create provide excuses for more power.
Let’s just say what many people already know: the “war on terrorism” produces terrorists. No half-intelligent person could think that U.S. treatment of the Muslim world could have any effect other than to produce violent, vengeful anti-Americanism. Even in the government-friendly mainstream media you will find the facts, though you’ll have to connect the dots yourself.
When you treat people like they are worthless, or help others to treat them that way, some of those people will get mad and vow to get even. If desperate enough they will even be willing to give their lives to the cause.
Isn’t this already obvious? For over 50 years U.S. administrations, for the sake of geopolitical hegemony and preferential access to resources, have treated much of the Muslim world like personal property. They’ve backed brutal dictators, subverted governments, and invaded and occupied countries as it suited their agenda of “world leadership.” The program included defying the will of the Iranian people (1953), backing the repressive Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian and Iraqi dictatorships, financing Israel’s wars against Lebanon and oppression of the Palestinians, and so much more. It was bad enough that England and France had betrayed the trust of the Arabs after World War I and turned the Middle East into a colonial playground, with all the humiliation and repression that implies. The U.S. government then compounded the crime by picking up the mantle of empire after World War II. Power and oil were the reasons. Were the brutalized and mortified people supposed to be grateful to the West?
We kid ourselves when we pretend that history began on Sept. 11, 2001. Can anyone say with a straight face that before that date America was minding its own business according to the noninterventionist guidelines set out by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? Read some history. Or does American exceptionalism mean not having to know anything before dropping bombs on people and torturing detainees?
The Muslims who wish Americans ill have never been mysterious about their grievances. Osama bin Laden’s fatwa against the United States is online. Read it for yourself. It was issued in 1996, soon after U.S.-financed Israel conducted one of its regular onslaughts against the Lebanese. What are his specific grievances? American troops stationed near Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia. The 1990s killer U.S. embargo on Iraq. U.S. sponsorship of Israel’s domination of the Palestinians and its neighbors. “Terrorising you, while you are carrying arms on our land, is a legitimate and morally demanded duty,” he wrote.
You don’t need to take bin Laden’s word for it. Bush administration officials acknowledged that U.S. policy creates more terrorists than it kills. Bush strategist Paul Wolfowitz himself said that occupying Iraq permitted U.S. troops to leave Saudi Arabia, where they had created so much hostility to America. Correct: American policy manufactures terrorism.
With impunity the U.S. government fires missiles from pilotless drones into Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, killing innocents. Its occupation forces leave death and misery in their wake. Gen. Stanley McChrystal concedes that in Afghanistan “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.” And in the latest incident, Israel killed nine aid volunteers (including an American citizen) on the high seas while enforcing a cruel blockade of Gaza, the latest mistreatment of Palestinians. How can this not come back to haunt us, Israel’s financiers?
U.S. policy — no matter who’s in power — couldn’t be better tailored to recruit terrorists. We can keep pretending we are innocent victims. Or we can finally put the responsibility where it belongs: in Washington, D.C.
Moreover, they — along with anyone else who takes time to examine the matter — know that they create the greatest dangers Americans face. They just don’t care. They have bigger fish to fry than keeping Americans safe. Besides, the dangers they create provide excuses for more power.
Let’s just say what many people already know: the “war on terrorism” produces terrorists. No half-intelligent person could think that U.S. treatment of the Muslim world could have any effect other than to produce violent, vengeful anti-Americanism. Even in the government-friendly mainstream media you will find the facts, though you’ll have to connect the dots yourself.
When you treat people like they are worthless, or help others to treat them that way, some of those people will get mad and vow to get even. If desperate enough they will even be willing to give their lives to the cause.
Isn’t this already obvious? For over 50 years U.S. administrations, for the sake of geopolitical hegemony and preferential access to resources, have treated much of the Muslim world like personal property. They’ve backed brutal dictators, subverted governments, and invaded and occupied countries as it suited their agenda of “world leadership.” The program included defying the will of the Iranian people (1953), backing the repressive Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian and Iraqi dictatorships, financing Israel’s wars against Lebanon and oppression of the Palestinians, and so much more. It was bad enough that England and France had betrayed the trust of the Arabs after World War I and turned the Middle East into a colonial playground, with all the humiliation and repression that implies. The U.S. government then compounded the crime by picking up the mantle of empire after World War II. Power and oil were the reasons. Were the brutalized and mortified people supposed to be grateful to the West?
We kid ourselves when we pretend that history began on Sept. 11, 2001. Can anyone say with a straight face that before that date America was minding its own business according to the noninterventionist guidelines set out by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? Read some history. Or does American exceptionalism mean not having to know anything before dropping bombs on people and torturing detainees?
The Muslims who wish Americans ill have never been mysterious about their grievances. Osama bin Laden’s fatwa against the United States is online. Read it for yourself. It was issued in 1996, soon after U.S.-financed Israel conducted one of its regular onslaughts against the Lebanese. What are his specific grievances? American troops stationed near Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia. The 1990s killer U.S. embargo on Iraq. U.S. sponsorship of Israel’s domination of the Palestinians and its neighbors. “Terrorising you, while you are carrying arms on our land, is a legitimate and morally demanded duty,” he wrote.
You don’t need to take bin Laden’s word for it. Bush administration officials acknowledged that U.S. policy creates more terrorists than it kills. Bush strategist Paul Wolfowitz himself said that occupying Iraq permitted U.S. troops to leave Saudi Arabia, where they had created so much hostility to America. Correct: American policy manufactures terrorism.
With impunity the U.S. government fires missiles from pilotless drones into Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, killing innocents. Its occupation forces leave death and misery in their wake. Gen. Stanley McChrystal concedes that in Afghanistan “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.” And in the latest incident, Israel killed nine aid volunteers (including an American citizen) on the high seas while enforcing a cruel blockade of Gaza, the latest mistreatment of Palestinians. How can this not come back to haunt us, Israel’s financiers?
U.S. policy — no matter who’s in power — couldn’t be better tailored to recruit terrorists. We can keep pretending we are innocent victims. Or we can finally put the responsibility where it belongs: in Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
So what are Neoconservatives and why are we Anti- them?
So what, exactly, is a "neoconservative?" The answer to that depends on who you ask. There doesn't seem to be one clear, universally-accepted definition of the neoconservative political philosophy, and of course, they change some of their stripes over time. George Bush entered office as a Paleoconservative, but now is generally considered a Neo. No surprise, when you see how many of his handlers and advisors are Neocons! This site attempts to shine some light on neoconservative ideology and its influence over our national and international affairs.
Many observers (some even smarter than us!) think that the neoconservative approach to international policy, which has come to full flower under the Bush Administration, fully and uniquely accounts for the unprecedented low to which the world's opinion of the United States has sunk. We have few allies left, and the people (not just the governments) of most of the world regard us as intolerant bullies and tyrants to be mistrusted and despised, despite the fact that more of our GNP is going to overseas aid than ever in our history. Clearly, the world's estimation of the United States is such that we can no longer even buy a friend!
WHO ARE THESE PPL
The Neocons are a small group of very intelligent and very scary people who tend to associate themselves closely with conservative "think tanks" and universities, and populate the highest ranks of government, more often in appointed or behind-the-scenes positions than in elected posts. Included amonf them are names like Dick Cheney (U.S. Vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (form Secretary of Defense), Karl Rove (recently departed White House Deputy Chief of Staff), John Ashcroft (former U.S. Attorney General), I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (former Chief of Staff to V. P. Cheney), and many more both recognizable and not so recognizable. See our weekly Neocon spotlight (to the right), and our scrolling Rogues Gallery below.
>Where did they Come From
Actually, the Noeconservative movement has its roots in Liberalism, not extreme conservatism as many believe. The first group of Neocons, including Irving Kristol, Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and Norman Podoretz, were former liberals who, during the Cold War era, became dissatisfied with Democratic party positions on anti-communism (too weak), the rise of counter-culture in the U.S., anti-war sentiment, and what they decried as the "appeasement" politics of the 1970s. What began as a repudiation of some core liberal values, emerged as a coherent political ideology in the 1970s, with hawkish foreign policy as its core tenet.
>What They Bleave
Well, as with any political group there are individual variations, but we can identify a set of "core" beliefs that help us to distinguish Neoconservative thinkers from the mainstream conservative ideology.
The central focus of neoconservatism is their view of foreign policy and America's role in world affairs. The rule is that as the dominant world power, the U.S. is necessarily not just the world's overseer, but its moral arbiter as well. They claim that "whatever furthers the interests of the U.S. should be good for the whole planet." This consummately arrogant concept provides the rationale behind most of our military interventions overseas, and our new “strong-arm diplomacy” that is increasingly viewed as an alternative to “checkbook diplomacy.” It's also the reason that all around the globe, respect for the U.S. is being replaced with mistrust and hatred. Even the nations receiving billions of dollars in U.S. aid can no longer be regarded as better than fair-weather allies.
Another important difference between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives is in their views about the size of government and its role in domestic society. The Neos who originally defected from the Democratic party sling-shotted right past the conservative “minimalist” view of government, and landed on a perverse new position where government is big and powerful (like the liberals), but uses its power to preserve and protect itself rather than provide protections and services to its citizens (like Monarchs or Dictators), and to protect its subjects’ by taking away their privacy and those pesky "civil liberties." That’s why we have wiretapping programs with no oversight or accountability, refusal to disclose whether the government is violating international standards of human rights, Attorneys General who enforce our laws differently depending upon political affiliation, and a Vice-president who claims that his office is not part of the Executive Branch and therefore not subject to Congressional subpoena.
>How do Necons Manipulate the Media
Two words: Rupert Murdoch. The owner of News Corp., the world’s largest media conglomerate, is himself a Neocon. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, he unashamedly used the power of his presses and cameras (175 media outlets) to further his hawkish agenda. The British newspaper “The Guardian” wrote sarcastically:
“You have got to admit that Rupert Murdoch is one canny press tycoon because he has an unerring ability to choose editors across the world who think just like him. How else can we explain the extraordinary unity of thought in his newspaper empire about the need to make war on Iraq? After an exhaustive survey of the highest-selling and most influential papers across the world owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, it is clear that all are singing from the same hymn sheet. Some are bellicose baritone soloists who relish the fight. Some prefer a less strident, if more subtle, role in the chorus. But none, whether fortissimo or pianissimo, has dared to croon the anti-war tune. Their master's voice has never been questioned" (Guardian, February 17, 2003).
In the United States, Fox News (cable t.v.) and the Weekly Standard (print and Internet) are the most visible of News Corp's mouthpieces for the Neoconservative camp, but hardly the only ones.
Many observers (some even smarter than us!) think that the neoconservative approach to international policy, which has come to full flower under the Bush Administration, fully and uniquely accounts for the unprecedented low to which the world's opinion of the United States has sunk. We have few allies left, and the people (not just the governments) of most of the world regard us as intolerant bullies and tyrants to be mistrusted and despised, despite the fact that more of our GNP is going to overseas aid than ever in our history. Clearly, the world's estimation of the United States is such that we can no longer even buy a friend!
WHO ARE THESE PPL
The Neocons are a small group of very intelligent and very scary people who tend to associate themselves closely with conservative "think tanks" and universities, and populate the highest ranks of government, more often in appointed or behind-the-scenes positions than in elected posts. Included amonf them are names like Dick Cheney (U.S. Vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (form Secretary of Defense), Karl Rove (recently departed White House Deputy Chief of Staff), John Ashcroft (former U.S. Attorney General), I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (former Chief of Staff to V. P. Cheney), and many more both recognizable and not so recognizable. See our weekly Neocon spotlight (to the right), and our scrolling Rogues Gallery below.
>Where did they Come From
Actually, the Noeconservative movement has its roots in Liberalism, not extreme conservatism as many believe. The first group of Neocons, including Irving Kristol, Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and Norman Podoretz, were former liberals who, during the Cold War era, became dissatisfied with Democratic party positions on anti-communism (too weak), the rise of counter-culture in the U.S., anti-war sentiment, and what they decried as the "appeasement" politics of the 1970s. What began as a repudiation of some core liberal values, emerged as a coherent political ideology in the 1970s, with hawkish foreign policy as its core tenet.
>What They Bleave
Well, as with any political group there are individual variations, but we can identify a set of "core" beliefs that help us to distinguish Neoconservative thinkers from the mainstream conservative ideology.
The central focus of neoconservatism is their view of foreign policy and America's role in world affairs. The rule is that as the dominant world power, the U.S. is necessarily not just the world's overseer, but its moral arbiter as well. They claim that "whatever furthers the interests of the U.S. should be good for the whole planet." This consummately arrogant concept provides the rationale behind most of our military interventions overseas, and our new “strong-arm diplomacy” that is increasingly viewed as an alternative to “checkbook diplomacy.” It's also the reason that all around the globe, respect for the U.S. is being replaced with mistrust and hatred. Even the nations receiving billions of dollars in U.S. aid can no longer be regarded as better than fair-weather allies.
Another important difference between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives is in their views about the size of government and its role in domestic society. The Neos who originally defected from the Democratic party sling-shotted right past the conservative “minimalist” view of government, and landed on a perverse new position where government is big and powerful (like the liberals), but uses its power to preserve and protect itself rather than provide protections and services to its citizens (like Monarchs or Dictators), and to protect its subjects’ by taking away their privacy and those pesky "civil liberties." That’s why we have wiretapping programs with no oversight or accountability, refusal to disclose whether the government is violating international standards of human rights, Attorneys General who enforce our laws differently depending upon political affiliation, and a Vice-president who claims that his office is not part of the Executive Branch and therefore not subject to Congressional subpoena.
>How do Necons Manipulate the Media
Two words: Rupert Murdoch. The owner of News Corp., the world’s largest media conglomerate, is himself a Neocon. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, he unashamedly used the power of his presses and cameras (175 media outlets) to further his hawkish agenda. The British newspaper “The Guardian” wrote sarcastically:
“You have got to admit that Rupert Murdoch is one canny press tycoon because he has an unerring ability to choose editors across the world who think just like him. How else can we explain the extraordinary unity of thought in his newspaper empire about the need to make war on Iraq? After an exhaustive survey of the highest-selling and most influential papers across the world owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, it is clear that all are singing from the same hymn sheet. Some are bellicose baritone soloists who relish the fight. Some prefer a less strident, if more subtle, role in the chorus. But none, whether fortissimo or pianissimo, has dared to croon the anti-war tune. Their master's voice has never been questioned" (Guardian, February 17, 2003).
In the United States, Fox News (cable t.v.) and the Weekly Standard (print and Internet) are the most visible of News Corp's mouthpieces for the Neoconservative camp, but hardly the only ones.
Monday, June 07, 2010
The War in Afghanistan Reaches New Milestone: Longest War in U.S. History, Surpasses the Vietnam War
As the Afghanistan War replaces the Vietnam War as the longest war in U.S. history, Brave New Foundation and TrueMajority today called on President Obama and Congress to ensure a responsible troop withdrawal from Afghanistan complete no later than December 2011. Brave New Foundation and TrueMajority released a new video marking the milestone featuring leading experts, including: former military analyst Daniel Ellsberg, Malou Innocent of the CATO Institute, author Tom Hayden and historian Christian Appy speaking to the Vietnamization of Afghanistan and to the staggering cost to Americans totaling almost $300 billion and over 1,000 American lives.
As of Monday, June 7, 2010, the U.S. will have been in Afghanistan for 104 months, more than eight-and-a half years, surpassing the war in Vietnam. In his December 2009 West Point speech, President Obama announced a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan would begin in July 2011. However, he set no end date, leaving open the possibility that U.S. combat troops could remain there indefinitely.
The call for a firm withdrawal end-date comes as Congress debates spending another $33 billion on troop escalation in Afghanistan.
It is a real tragedy that Afghanistan has now become the longest war in American history. This war has gone on long enough, and it’s time to end it. We have already spent almost $300 billion dollars on Afghanistan and have lost over 1,000 American lives, all for a war that is not making us safer.” Director, Robert Greenwald, Brave New Foundation
“I think of this war as Vietnamistan. It’s essentially the same form of war: fighting people who are mainly motivated by the determination to expel foreign invaders from their country.” Daniel Ellsberg, Former US Military Analyst, RAND Corp
“[President Obama] has not promised or pledged how many troops he promises to take out or leave behind, so it’s very ambiguous. I wouldn’t be surprised if we are in this region for the foreseeable future.” Malou Innocent, Foreign Policy Analyst, Cato Institute
“Afghanistan becoming the longest war in our history forces us to ask: Just how long is long enough? How much money is too much? How many more lives is this worth? The answer is that the war in Afghanistan has already cost us too much – and it’s up to Congress to bring home the troops and refocus our priorities.” Matt Holland, Online Director TrueMajority/USAction
As of Monday, June 7, 2010, the U.S. will have been in Afghanistan for 104 months, more than eight-and-a half years, surpassing the war in Vietnam. In his December 2009 West Point speech, President Obama announced a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan would begin in July 2011. However, he set no end date, leaving open the possibility that U.S. combat troops could remain there indefinitely.
The call for a firm withdrawal end-date comes as Congress debates spending another $33 billion on troop escalation in Afghanistan.
It is a real tragedy that Afghanistan has now become the longest war in American history. This war has gone on long enough, and it’s time to end it. We have already spent almost $300 billion dollars on Afghanistan and have lost over 1,000 American lives, all for a war that is not making us safer.” Director, Robert Greenwald, Brave New Foundation
“I think of this war as Vietnamistan. It’s essentially the same form of war: fighting people who are mainly motivated by the determination to expel foreign invaders from their country.” Daniel Ellsberg, Former US Military Analyst, RAND Corp
“[President Obama] has not promised or pledged how many troops he promises to take out or leave behind, so it’s very ambiguous. I wouldn’t be surprised if we are in this region for the foreseeable future.” Malou Innocent, Foreign Policy Analyst, Cato Institute
“Afghanistan becoming the longest war in our history forces us to ask: Just how long is long enough? How much money is too much? How many more lives is this worth? The answer is that the war in Afghanistan has already cost us too much – and it’s up to Congress to bring home the troops and refocus our priorities.” Matt Holland, Online Director TrueMajority/USAction
US Arms Used for War Crimes in Gaza
Israel’s repeated firing of US-made white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza during its recent military campaign was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes, Human Rights Watch said in a report released March 25, 2009.
The seventy-one-page report, “Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza,” provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. Human Rights Watch researchers found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended in January.
Militaries officially use white phosphorus to obscure their operations on the ground by creating thick smoke. It has also been used as an incendiary weapon, though such use constitutes a war crime. “In Gaza, the Israeli military didn’t just use white phosphorus in open areas as a screen for its troops,” said Fred Abrahams, senior emergencies researcher at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report. “It fired white phosphorus repeatedly over densely populated areas, even when its troops weren’t in the area and safer smoke shells were available. As a result, civilians needlessly suffered and died.” The report documents a pattern or policy of white phosphorus use that Human Rights Watch says must have required the approval of senior military officers.
The devastating Israeli firepower, unleashed largely on Palestinian civilians in Gaza during the three-week attack starting December 27, 2008 was fueled by US-supplied weapons paid for with US tax dollars. Washington provided F-16 fighter planes, Apache helicopters, tactical missiles, and a wide array of munitions, including white phosphorus and DIME. The weapons required for the Israeli assault were decided upon in June 2008, and the transfer of 1,000 bunker-buster GPS-guided Small Diameter Guided Bomb Units 39 (GBU-39) were approved by Congress in September. The GBU 39 bombs were delivered to Israel in November (prior to any claims of Hamas cease fire violation) for use in the initial air raids on Gaza.
Researchers in Gaza found several weapon fragments after the attacks. One came from a 500lb (227kg) Mark-82 fin guided bomb, which had markings indicating parts were made by the US company Raytheon. They also found fragments of US-made white phosphorus artillery shells, marked M825 A1.
In the recent Gaza operations, Israeli forces frequently airburst white phosphorus in 155mm artillery shells in and near populated areas. Each airburst shell spreads 116 burning white phosphorus wedges in a radius extending up to 125 meters from the blast point. White phosphorus ignites and burns on contact with oxygen, and continues burning at up to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit (816 degrees Celsius) until nothing is left or the oxygen supply is cut. When white phosphorus comes into contact with skin it creates intense and persistent burns that continue to ignite.
On January 15, several white phosphorus shells fired by the Israeli military hit the headquarters of the UN Relief and Works Agency in Gaza City, destroying medicine, food and other basic aid. One fragment found at the scene had markings indicating it was made by the Pine Bluff Arsenal, based in Arkansas, in October 1991.
The UN Security Council, Amnesty International, International Red Cross, and voices of protest from around the world demanded a ceasefire. Yet, with shocking lack of regard, both houses of US Congress overwhelmingly endorsed resolutions to support a continuation of Israel’s “self defense.”
Four days after the carnage ensued, on December 31, the US Navy’s Sealift Command hired ships to deliver another 3,000-odd tons of arms to Israel through Greece. This last shipment was halted mid-January due to Greek protest. The US has long been the largest arms supplier to Israel; under a current ten-year agreement negotiated by the Bush administration, the US will provide $30 billion in military aid to Israel.
“As the major supplier of weapons to Israel, the USA has a particular obligation to stop any supply that contributes to gross violations of the laws of war and of human rights,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty’s Middle East and North Africa program director. “To a large extent, Israel’s military offensive in Gaza was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the USA and paid for with US taxpayers’ money.”
Update by Jeremy R. Hammond
On the day the US Senate passed S.RES.10, “reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel in its battle with Hamas” (January 8, 2009), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) issued a statement demanding to be allowed to assist those in need of medical attention because the Israeli military had blocked access to wounded Palestinians, a war crime under international law. Also that same day, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon issued a statement condemning the Israeli Defense Force for firing on a UN aid convoy delivering humanitarian goods to the desperate people of Gaza, another war crime, as well as the killing of two staff members of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in a separate incident.
The next day, the House passed its own version of the resolution, H.RES.34, as UNRWA announced that it had had to halt its humanitarian efforts because of numerous incidents in which its staff, convoys, and installations had come under attack by Israeli forces.
The Senate resolution was reported by foreign media agencies. The Jerusalem Post had a story on it, as did Reuters. In the US, it was reported by the Jewish daily Forward and mentioned in alternative media sources by Stephen Zunes, Robert Naiman, and several others. It was first brought to my attention by Foreign Policy in Focus (http://www.fpif.org), and the text was available on the AIPAC website. But to my knowledge it was not reported in the mainstream media.
It’s hardly a secret that the US has a “special relationship” with Israel, but the full extent of US support for Israeli crimes is a matter that is met with absolute silence by the mainstream media, and Congressional support for Israel’s aggression and war crimes against the people of Gaza was no exception. When reported, the mainstream media employs euphemisms or parrots the official US government line, such as that settlements are an “obstacle to peace” rather than “illegal.”
The US supports Israel financially, with upwards of $3 billion annually. This money is given with little to no oversight, but even if it is not used to directly fund Israel’s illegal settlements and occupation, it allows Israel to free up other funds and divert them for that purpose.
The US supports Israel militarily. In its assault on Gaza, for instance, Israel employed US-made F-16 jets and Apache helicopter gunships. U.S-made bombs were dropped on Gaza during twenty-two days of violence, resulting in over 1,300 Palestinian deaths, nearly a third of whom were children, among other civilian victims.
The US also supports Israel diplomatically. For instance, the US delayed passage of a UN resolution calling for a cease-fire during the assault on Gaza, according to foreign diplomats.
President Obama has issued strong words in support of Palestinian statehood and against the Israeli settlements. It’s up to the American people, though, to put pressure on the US government to ensure that the rhetoric is followed up with action, such as an end to such financial, military, and diplomatic support for Israeli crimes.
This is among the reasons why it’s so important that stories like the US Congressional endorsement for Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” against Gaza be made known to the public.
The seventy-one-page report, “Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza,” provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. Human Rights Watch researchers found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended in January.
Militaries officially use white phosphorus to obscure their operations on the ground by creating thick smoke. It has also been used as an incendiary weapon, though such use constitutes a war crime. “In Gaza, the Israeli military didn’t just use white phosphorus in open areas as a screen for its troops,” said Fred Abrahams, senior emergencies researcher at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report. “It fired white phosphorus repeatedly over densely populated areas, even when its troops weren’t in the area and safer smoke shells were available. As a result, civilians needlessly suffered and died.” The report documents a pattern or policy of white phosphorus use that Human Rights Watch says must have required the approval of senior military officers.
The devastating Israeli firepower, unleashed largely on Palestinian civilians in Gaza during the three-week attack starting December 27, 2008 was fueled by US-supplied weapons paid for with US tax dollars. Washington provided F-16 fighter planes, Apache helicopters, tactical missiles, and a wide array of munitions, including white phosphorus and DIME. The weapons required for the Israeli assault were decided upon in June 2008, and the transfer of 1,000 bunker-buster GPS-guided Small Diameter Guided Bomb Units 39 (GBU-39) were approved by Congress in September. The GBU 39 bombs were delivered to Israel in November (prior to any claims of Hamas cease fire violation) for use in the initial air raids on Gaza.
Researchers in Gaza found several weapon fragments after the attacks. One came from a 500lb (227kg) Mark-82 fin guided bomb, which had markings indicating parts were made by the US company Raytheon. They also found fragments of US-made white phosphorus artillery shells, marked M825 A1.
In the recent Gaza operations, Israeli forces frequently airburst white phosphorus in 155mm artillery shells in and near populated areas. Each airburst shell spreads 116 burning white phosphorus wedges in a radius extending up to 125 meters from the blast point. White phosphorus ignites and burns on contact with oxygen, and continues burning at up to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit (816 degrees Celsius) until nothing is left or the oxygen supply is cut. When white phosphorus comes into contact with skin it creates intense and persistent burns that continue to ignite.
On January 15, several white phosphorus shells fired by the Israeli military hit the headquarters of the UN Relief and Works Agency in Gaza City, destroying medicine, food and other basic aid. One fragment found at the scene had markings indicating it was made by the Pine Bluff Arsenal, based in Arkansas, in October 1991.
The UN Security Council, Amnesty International, International Red Cross, and voices of protest from around the world demanded a ceasefire. Yet, with shocking lack of regard, both houses of US Congress overwhelmingly endorsed resolutions to support a continuation of Israel’s “self defense.”
Four days after the carnage ensued, on December 31, the US Navy’s Sealift Command hired ships to deliver another 3,000-odd tons of arms to Israel through Greece. This last shipment was halted mid-January due to Greek protest. The US has long been the largest arms supplier to Israel; under a current ten-year agreement negotiated by the Bush administration, the US will provide $30 billion in military aid to Israel.
“As the major supplier of weapons to Israel, the USA has a particular obligation to stop any supply that contributes to gross violations of the laws of war and of human rights,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty’s Middle East and North Africa program director. “To a large extent, Israel’s military offensive in Gaza was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the USA and paid for with US taxpayers’ money.”
Update by Jeremy R. Hammond
On the day the US Senate passed S.RES.10, “reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel in its battle with Hamas” (January 8, 2009), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) issued a statement demanding to be allowed to assist those in need of medical attention because the Israeli military had blocked access to wounded Palestinians, a war crime under international law. Also that same day, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon issued a statement condemning the Israeli Defense Force for firing on a UN aid convoy delivering humanitarian goods to the desperate people of Gaza, another war crime, as well as the killing of two staff members of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in a separate incident.
The next day, the House passed its own version of the resolution, H.RES.34, as UNRWA announced that it had had to halt its humanitarian efforts because of numerous incidents in which its staff, convoys, and installations had come under attack by Israeli forces.
The Senate resolution was reported by foreign media agencies. The Jerusalem Post had a story on it, as did Reuters. In the US, it was reported by the Jewish daily Forward and mentioned in alternative media sources by Stephen Zunes, Robert Naiman, and several others. It was first brought to my attention by Foreign Policy in Focus (http://www.fpif.org), and the text was available on the AIPAC website. But to my knowledge it was not reported in the mainstream media.
It’s hardly a secret that the US has a “special relationship” with Israel, but the full extent of US support for Israeli crimes is a matter that is met with absolute silence by the mainstream media, and Congressional support for Israel’s aggression and war crimes against the people of Gaza was no exception. When reported, the mainstream media employs euphemisms or parrots the official US government line, such as that settlements are an “obstacle to peace” rather than “illegal.”
The US supports Israel financially, with upwards of $3 billion annually. This money is given with little to no oversight, but even if it is not used to directly fund Israel’s illegal settlements and occupation, it allows Israel to free up other funds and divert them for that purpose.
The US supports Israel militarily. In its assault on Gaza, for instance, Israel employed US-made F-16 jets and Apache helicopter gunships. U.S-made bombs were dropped on Gaza during twenty-two days of violence, resulting in over 1,300 Palestinian deaths, nearly a third of whom were children, among other civilian victims.
The US also supports Israel diplomatically. For instance, the US delayed passage of a UN resolution calling for a cease-fire during the assault on Gaza, according to foreign diplomats.
President Obama has issued strong words in support of Palestinian statehood and against the Israeli settlements. It’s up to the American people, though, to put pressure on the US government to ensure that the rhetoric is followed up with action, such as an end to such financial, military, and diplomatic support for Israeli crimes.
This is among the reasons why it’s so important that stories like the US Congressional endorsement for Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead” against Gaza be made known to the public.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Pakistan raises defence budget to $5.2 bn
Pakistan increased its annual spending on defence to $5.2 billion (Rs.442 billion) as the government presented its budget Saturday with an outlay of Rs.2.764 trillion for the 2010-11 fiscal starting July 1.
The allocation for defence is Rs.442 billion, which is higher by Rs.100 billion and Rs.64 billion respectively against the current year's and revised budget estimates, Online news agency reported.
The government presented its deficit budget with total outlay of Rs 2.764 trillion which is higher by 12.3 percent as compared to the current fiscal .
The budget has estimated country's current resources at Rs.2.598 trillion for the next financial year, while the estimate under this head was Rs.2.299 trillion for the current financial year.
The total expenditure for the next financial year has been estimated at Rs 2.764 trillion. While Rs.1.998 trillion has been earmarked for current expenses, Rs.787 billion has been allocated for developmental expenses.
The developmental expenditure is 25.3 percent higher than the revised estimate for the outgoing fiscal.
Other allocations include Rs.7.28 billion for health, Rs.66.89 billion for economic affairs, Rs.448 million for environment protection and Rs.34.50 billion for education.
The budget has projected revenue collection from domestic resources at Rs.2.410 trillion during the next financial year, 20.1 percent higher than the current year's estimate.
Common Men's Question WHAT ABOUT THE EDUCATION ???
The allocation for defence is Rs.442 billion, which is higher by Rs.100 billion and Rs.64 billion respectively against the current year's and revised budget estimates, Online news agency reported.
The government presented its deficit budget with total outlay of Rs 2.764 trillion which is higher by 12.3 percent as compared to the current fiscal .
The budget has estimated country's current resources at Rs.2.598 trillion for the next financial year, while the estimate under this head was Rs.2.299 trillion for the current financial year.
The total expenditure for the next financial year has been estimated at Rs 2.764 trillion. While Rs.1.998 trillion has been earmarked for current expenses, Rs.787 billion has been allocated for developmental expenses.
The developmental expenditure is 25.3 percent higher than the revised estimate for the outgoing fiscal.
Other allocations include Rs.7.28 billion for health, Rs.66.89 billion for economic affairs, Rs.448 million for environment protection and Rs.34.50 billion for education.
The budget has projected revenue collection from domestic resources at Rs.2.410 trillion during the next financial year, 20.1 percent higher than the current year's estimate.
Common Men's Question WHAT ABOUT THE EDUCATION ???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)