05/24 to 05/30 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***

**willdo** · 05-26-2012 11:27 PM

Wow Ragnarok - that's one crazy picture...... scary as all get out.

agreed, and here's the description of few of the creatures man will meet in the last days....

Revelation 9

7The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. 8Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. 9They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. 10They had tails and stings like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. 11They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon....

15And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind. 16The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number.

17The horses and riders I saw in my vision looked like this: Their breastplates were fiery red, dark blue, and yellow as sulfur. The heads of the horses resembled the heads of lions, and out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur. 18A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths. 19The power of the horses was in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails were like snakes, having heads with which they inflict injury.

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 08:36 AM

=

Panetta: U.S. is Ready to Stop Iran
from Creating Nuclear Weapons

By Beth Reinhard
Updated: May 27, 2012 | 9:08 a.m.
May 27, 2012 | 8:55 a.m.
http://nationaljournal.com/nationals...apons-20120527

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Sunday indirectly confirmed recent remarks by the Ambassador to Israel that the U.S. is “ready from a military perspective’’ to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon if international pressure fails.

The U.S. and members of the United Nations Security Council recently met in Baghdad for talks about Iran’s suspected nuclear weapon program. Iran denies it has military intentions but has called for the destruction of Israel.

“We have plans to be able to implement any contingency we have to in order to defend ourselves,’’ Panetta said on ABC’s This Week. Earlier, Panetta said, “The fundamental premise is that neither the United States or the international community is going to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.’’

Panetta defended the U.S. military’s use of drones to kill terrorists, resulting in some civilian casualties, calling them “one of the most precise weapons that we have in our arsenal.’’

He also insisted that the administration did not share any “inappropriate’’ details with filmmakers making a movie about Osama bin Laden, despite criticism from members of Congress.

=

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 08:39 AM

=

Iran: No reasons to halt
20 percent enrichment

Published May 27, 2012
Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05...nt-enrichment/

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's nuclear chief says there are no reasons at the moment to halt production of uranium enriched to 20 percent, a key demand of world powers.

Fereidoun Abbasi was quoted by state TV Sunday as saying Iran will continue the higher enrichment for a medical research reactor that produces isotopes for cancer treatment.

Abbasi's statement echoes Iran's objections last week in Baghdad to suspending 20 percent enrichment in exchange for a U.S.-supported package that would include supplying Iran with isotopes. Iran seeks to have Western sanctions eased before considering any deals.

The U.S. and allies worry that the 20 percent enriched material could be turned quickly into weapons grade uranium. Iran denies it seeks nuclear arms.

Abbasi also said Iran plans to build at least two new nuclear power plants next to an existing facility that became operational with Russia's help last year.

Iran is in the very early stages of planning the new 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plants, it may begin construction within a year or two, he said.

Iran has repeatedly said in recent years that it is planning to build more nuclear power plants but nothing has been offered to show that any work is under way.

Iran's first power plant went into operation last May at the southern coastal city of Bushehr.

The West suspect Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon program, a charge Iran denies.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05...#ixzz1w4qHTNdj

=

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 08:44 AM

=

Iran refuses IAEA visit to suspect nuke site

Added At: 2012-05-27 6:21 PM
Last Updated At: 2012-05-27 6:21 PM
The Himalayan Times
REUTERS
http://thehimalayantimes.com/fullNew...&NewsID=333734

Iranian officials have refused access to the complex‚
southeast of Tehran‚ saying it is a military site.

DUBAI: The U.N. nuclear watchdog has not yet given good enough reasons to visit an Iranian site where it suspects there may have been experiments for developing nuclear weapons, Iranian media said.

The Parchin complex is at the centre of Western suspicions that Iran is developing atom bombs despite Tehran's repeated denials of any such ambition. A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week said satellite images showed "extensive activities" at Parchin.

Iranian officials have refused access to the complex, southeast of Tehran, saying it is a military site.

"The reasons and document have still not been presented by the agency to convince us to give permission for this visit," the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, was quoted as saying by Fars news agency on Saturday.

Six world powers failed to convince Iran last week to halt its most sensitive nuclear work, but they will meet again in Moscow next month to try to end a standoff that has raised fears of a new war that could threaten global oil supplies.

Last November, an IAEA report found that Iran had built a large containment vessel in 2000 at Parchin in which to conduct tests that the agency said were "strong indicators of possible weapon development."

In last week's report, the IAEA did not elaborate on what activities it believed were happening there, but Western diplomats suspect Iran is trying to remove any potentially incriminating evidence. Tehran rejects this charge.

INSPECTION HOPES

After a visit to Tehran last week, IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said he was close to an agreement with Iran on inspection visits to nuclear facilities but some differences remained.

The US-based Institute for Science and International Security thinktank has said there is concern Iran may be trying to cleanse the building at Parchin - possibly by grinding down surfaces, collecting the dust and washing the area thoroughly.

Referring to the Baghdad talks with world powers, Abbasi-Davani dismissed pressure for an end to high-grade uranium enrichment as "predictable".

Iran has begun enriching uranium to 20 percent fissile purity, saying that is needed for a medical research reactor, but worrying Western countries who see it as a big step towards the 90 percent purity needed for weapons-grade uranium.

"There is no reason for us to give up enriching uranium to 20 percent because we produce this fuel only to meet our needs, no more and no less," the ISNA news agency quoted Abbasi-Davani as saying.

Tehran says it has a sovereign right to enrich uranium, but has sometimes indicated it may be flexible when it comes to higher grade uranium enrichment.

Iran has expanded enrichment at its Fordow nuclear facility, buried deep beneath rock and soil to protect it from air strikes.

Last week's IAEA report said nuclear engineers had installed 50 percent more enrichment centrifuges at Fordow. Although not yet being fed with uranium, the new machines could be used to further boost Iran's output of uranium enriched to 20 percent.

=

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 08:47 AM

=

Iran plans to build two
new nuclear power plants

By APPublished Sunday, May 27, 2012
http://www.emirates247.com/news/worl...05-27-1.460405

Iran's nuclear chief says his country is planning to build at least two new nuclear power plants next to an existing facility that became operational with Russia's help last year.

Fereidoun Abbasi was quoted by state TV as saying Sunday that Iran is in the very early stages of planning the new 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plants and that it may begin construction within a year or two.

Iran has repeatedly said in recent years that it is planning to build more nuclear power plants but nothing has been offered to show that any work is under way.

Iran's first power plant went into operation last May at the southern coastal city of Bushehr.

The West suspect Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon programme.

=

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 08:50 AM

=

Iranian general: Every base in
the area within our missile range

Published: 05.26.12, 22:56 / Israel News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...234475,00.html

Iranian Brigadier General Hossein Salami, speaking at a memorial service for General Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam, the former chief of Iran's ballistic missile program who was killed in a December explosion, said that "No base in the area is outside Iran's missile capabilities."

Salami further noted that Iran's surface-to-surface missiles are accurate enough "to strike any base you can imagine." (Dudi Cohen)

=

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 08:55 AM

=

Tens of thousands protest
against Morocco government

May 27, 2012 03:00 PM
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mid...#axzz1w4u8WRUt

CASABLANCA: Tens of thousands of Moroccans took to the streets of Casablanca on Sunday in the largest opposition protest since an Islamist-led government took office in January.

The protest was organised by trade unions which accuse Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane of failing to deliver on the pledges of social justice that brought his party to power in the wake of the Arab Spring.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mid...#ixzz1w4uFmXcw
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

=

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 08:59 AM

=

Iraq forces on high alert over Syria clashes

May 27, 2012 12:07 PM
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mid...#axzz1w4u8WRUt

BAGHDAD: Iraqi security forces were on high alert for several hours until Sunday morning following clashes between the Syrian army and rebel forces near the border, officers said.

From 11:00 pm (2000 GMT) on Saturday until Sunday morning, Iraqi forces were on their highest level of alert in the area surrounding the village of Albu Kamal, on the Iraq-Syria border.

"Our forces stepped up security after clashes broke out and explosions were heard on the Syrian side of the border," border guards Captain Ali Juwair said.

"The warning means we have to be on full alert, and we have to stay in our positions unless advised to do otherwise."

Juwair said the clashes were between Syrian government troops and the rebel Free Syrian Army at several checkpoints in Albu Kamal.

He said later that the alert level was lowered on Sunday morning, but did not specify a time.

An Iraqi army liaison officer charged with handling communications between the border guards and the army said that the clashes broke out at around 11:00 pm on Saturday, at which point Iraq's forces were put on alert.

"We received a call from an Iraqi army division deployed near the border, informing us of the clashes on the Syrian side, and it was requested that soldiers take precautions and not get involved unless there was a crossing of the border," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime launched a brutal crackdown on opponents from March last year that has left thousands dead, and clashes regularly take place between rebels and Syrian government forces.

The head of a U.N. mission has warned of "civil war" in Syria after his observers counted more than 92 bodies, 32 of them children, in the central town of Houla following reports of a massacre there.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mid...#ixzz1w4vIKCia
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

=

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 09:02 AM

=

Families occupy empty flats in crisis-hit Spain

May 27, 2012 10:02 AM
By Sylvie Groult
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Int...#axzz1w4u8WRUt

SEVILLE: Spanish grandmother Ana Lopez Corrales already feels at home in the Seville apartment where she's been living for the past week --- but it is not hers and she pays no rent.

The 67-year-old is one of 32 homeless families who are squatting in an empty four-storey building, one of thousands of unsold apartment blocks that dot Spain following the collapse of a property bubble in 2008.

Corrales said she found herself on the street when she could not keep up with her monthly rent of 500 euros ($630 dollars).

She and her 70-year-old husband, who has been bedridden for the past two decades, now occupy the show flat of the building, the only one that was furnished, and her kitchen is used by all the squatters.

"All the women you see here are homeless," she said as she gestured to several women as they prepared vegetables for lunch, washed dishes and polished tiles around her in the kitchen.

"This place has been shut up for more than two years, no one has come by. Why do they want to shut up these apartments when there are so many people in the street with nothing?", added Corrales.

The developer of the building has disappeared and no one has claimed the property.

The 32 families moved into the building with the aid of members of Spain's popular movement known as "the indignants", which emerged last year to protest economic inequality, corruption and sky-high unemployment.

"Demanding a home is a constitutional right. The Spanish constitution says that all Spaniards, all citizens, have the right to decent housing," said "indignant" activist Antonio Perez.

So far, police had let the squatters stay, he said.

"The police know that if a judge issues an eviction order, they will have to execute it. But up until now they have protected us."

There are about one million vacant homes left over from the property crash in Spain, where the number of home evictions last year amounted to more than 58,000.

-- 'Not a happy future' --

With Spain's unemployment rate of 24.4 percent, the highest in the industrialsed world, home evictions are expected to rise further.

The southwestern region of Andalucia, of which Seville is the capital, has been especially hard-hit by the crisis, with a jobless rate of over 33 percent.

"There must be many other people in our situation. This is an example for those who find a house that has been empty for two or three years," said Corrales, who has been dubbed "the heart of the neighbours".

"We did not know each other before but we are united now like a family, for better or worse we get along well. Our strength comes from our unity."

Corrales' 35-year-old daughter Ana Lopez also lives in a flat in the building, where she is struggling to raise her two children, aged six and 18, on a monthly family allowance of 426 euros.

"We want a rent that we would be able to afford," she said.

No one knows how long they will stay in the building.

"We will be here the time we need, for as long as my family does not have a decent roof over its head," said Aguasanta Quero Reyes, 38, who lives in a flat on the fourth floor with her husband and three children.

"My children joined me here two days ago and I can see they're very happy. When I opened the door, my eight-year-old son said: 'Thank you so much, mummy, thanks to everything you've done we've got a home."

Reyes, who earns just 250 euros a month working as a saleswoman, said her family moved into the flat after they were evicted for falling six months behind on their rent.

Raquel Machuca Rodriguez, who is pregnant with her fourth child, said she planned to buy second-hand furniture for the flat she occupies on the fourth floor.

"This is not a happy future but you have to take what you can get," the 29-year-old said.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Int...#ixzz1w4vtwt7b
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

=

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 09:11 AM

=

30 Spanish airports face closure

5 hours ago
http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/ne...-face-closure/

Up to 30 of Spain’s 47 state-run airports could face partial closure in a bid to cut costs after it emerged that they are no-where near to full capacity.

Despite being such a popular tourism destination, the public sector has been criticised for investing in so many airports which are not being used, according to reports.

It is thought that 30 of the 47 airports handle fewer than 100,000 passengers per year – 300,000 fewer passengers than they need to be profitable.

Badajoz airport was among the worst performers with its last commercial flight reportedly taking off in January..
AENA, Spain’s airport association, is looking to reduce operating hours at 30 of the airports in a bid to cut costs without closing them altogether.

‘We are analysing each one, airport by airport, to find where we can make cost-cutting,’ said a spokesman from AENA.

=

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 09:15 AM

=

Greece, Spain and
Phantom Bank Runs

By Peter Pham
updated 5/27/2012 5:06:20 AM ET
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47581636...s-motley_fool/

A lot has been made in the past few days about the amount of money being pulled from Greek and Spanish banks.Â And, while, I agree the actions of people on the ground are significant from a sociological standpoint (i.e., faith in the monetary and political system in those countries is failing rapidly), I am not convinced in a modern setting that it will in the end be anything more than sound and fury signifying nothing.

Most of the money in existence is digital credit.Â Numbers in computers held in accounts which themselves are nothing more than numbers in computers.Â Cash accounts for very little of the actual currency in circulation in most of the western world.Â In Asia this situation is completely different, though Visa has noted in their most recent earnings statements that even that cultural attribute is changing with increased international travel and the convenience and protection offered by digital money.

Those that bemoan fiat money forget to include in their zeal that all money is essentially fiat money, even gold.Â The crucial difference is not the fiat origins of the current global monetary system but rather that the money is both fiat and debt-based in nature. Â Those that use an American Express card to make purchases are engaging in the same type of transaction as a 30-day repo loan between banks; whereas with Visa the debt is open-ended, and for some eternal.Â Pay the vig every month and access to the perks of card ownership is yours: convenience, fraud and theft protection, etc.Â Â Â

Too bad Wall Street didnâ€™t take Visa for the FacebookÂ IPO -- there would be a whole lot fewer class-action lawsuits pending and call centers around the world would be slammed with angry Muppets.

That brings me back to the bank runs in Greece and Spain.Â Since money is mostly digital now, bank runs really donâ€™t have the same impact they had in the deflationary spiral of the 1930s.Â Today if you are scared for the health of your bank you pull your money out of one and deposit it in another.Â Itâ€™s a transfer of digits from one server to another. Greeks pull their money out of Greek banks and deposit the digits in Swiss or German banks.Â The Swiss and German banks are then free to lend at zero interest back to the Greek banks hence negating any net effect on the liquidity of the banking system.Â

Even with the Euro tanking versus the U.S. dollar the main effect will be on foreign trade, not on the health of the European banks.Â There are open swap lines at zero-bound interest rates between the five largest central banks in the world.Â Liquidity issues from bank runs can be absorbed and the reserves rebalanced.

Where the real danger lies then is when the banks are afraid to lend to each other.Â The credit markets are only just starting to act up.Â Credit default swap rates for the countries doing the bailing out have risen but they are not critical yet. U.S. debt carries a 48 basis point risk (in Euros), Germany 98 points.Â The problem has not reached unmanageable levels but at the current rate of ascent along with the OIS Swap rate pushing up to the 0.16% level, there will be a need to flood the system with more liquidity soon or the central banks will be flirting with a systemic seizure.

Who will benefit in all of this?Â The USD rally is a Euro-centric occurrence.Â This is not the secular bull run, though we have seen a serious unwinding of the dollar/Aussie carry trade in the past three months due to the popping of commodity prices.Â The CurrencyShares Australian Dollar ETF has dropped from $108.82 to $97.82 since Feb. 29.Â The Singapore dollar, which has been reported to have high exposure to European debt, has appreciated versus the Euro, while it has devalued versus the U.S. dollar. This devaluation has caused the CPI in Singapore to rise to nearly 5.5% and the MAS is considering having tightening monetary policy to combat this.

The real beneficiary in all of this capital flight has been the U.S. treasury, which is seeing record demand for its long-dated instruments.Â The 10-year note yield is 1.76%.Â The benchmark 30-year bond is trading at 2.85%.Â Itâ€™s becoming a very crowded trade.Â With the Fed sterilizing some of its balance sheet expansion from 2008 to cool off commodity prices and force the ECB to accept responsibility for this round of bailouts for Greece and Spain, they are making room for the next round of QE to deal with U.S. domestic problems should things get any worse.Â

But, no matter what happens, there will be no real bank runs.Â A slow trickle of capital into tangible assets like gold and resource-rich land, but the modern banking system is a prisonerâ€™s dilemma and any chance of escape is an illusion.

=

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 09:19 AM

=

Greece Could Implode the Second
Bailout and the EU by Mid-June

Politics / Eurozone Debt CrisisMay 27, 2012 - 08:39 AM
By: Graham_Summers
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34874.html

While most of my analysis so far has concerned France’s elections, it was in fact Greece’s May election which proved more significant for the future of the EU.

I do not want to delve too much into Greek history and political parties. So I’ll simply show the results along with the names and brief descriptions of each party:

The take home point here is that there is NO majority in the parliament. And by the look of things, there won’t be until run-off elections in June.

Syriza, the second largest group, refuses to take part in any coalition that will demand more austerity measures (it also wants to reject the terms of the second bailout entirely). The Democratic Left, which could form a majority if it teamed up with New Democracy, says it won’t join any coalition that excludes Syriza (knowing that Syriza is popular with Greek youth who are the ones that tend to riot and burn buildings down).

I realize this is getting complicated. The take-away item that is most important is the rapid rise in popularity of the Syriza, group, which is completely anti-austerity and anti-bailout (the party tripled its vote in the last election).

Indeed, Syriza’s leader, Alexis Tsipras, (the former mayor of Athens) didn’t even attend Monday’s coalition talks and says he will take no part in any discussions of bailouts. Young and completely fed up with calls for more austerity, Tsipras is seen by many Greeks to represent real change from the more established (and corrupt) Greek bureaucrats who continue to fall for the “austerity in exchange for more debt” trap pushed on them by the EU.

Tsipras holds the key to any potential majority in his hands. And he has every reason not to allow one to form right now: if a coalition cannot be formed, then Greece will hold run-off elections in mid-June (possibly the 17th). Current polls show Syriza could take as much as 27% of votes in a run-off. To put this in context, New Democracy, which took the most votes during the first round of the elections, only accumulated 17% of votes.

Greek parliament rules hold that the winning party receives an additional 50 seats. So if Syriza takes 27% of the vote it’ll get up to 128 seats in parliament. Throw in an alliance with the New Democratic Left and Syriza is essentially the majority party.

In plain terms, by mid-June, Greece could very well be controlled by an anti-austerity, anti-bailout party that wants to completely do away with the second Greek bailout (which means a potential disorderly default).

This actually is the best possible outcome for Greece as the alternative is outright anarchy. Remember, Greece has gone through two Governments since its Crisis began: one was the long-standing President, the other was an EU-appointed bureaucrat.

Put another way, Greece first rejected its own Government, then it rejected its EU replacement. And now it cannot even form a majority in its parliament. This is extremely bad news as Greece is only a few steps away from total anarchy and chaos.

After all, if Greece cannot form a government… who will be negotiating on its debt/ bailout agreements/ etc. with the rest of the EU?

On that note, we likely have a few weeks and at most a few months before the EU collapses. So if you are not preparing for this, YOU NEED TO DO SO NOW.

=

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 09:22 AM

=

Eurozone crisis: if Greece goes,
Germany's prosperity goes with it

If the eurozone were to shrink, Germany's once-captive markets would become too poor
to import: and the rapid appreciation of a stronger euro would make its exports much pricier

The Observer, Saturday 26 May 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...any-prosperity

Germany last week found itself able to borrow for two years at the astonishingly low rate of 0.07%. Very nice too: but surely the real message Angela Merkel and her colleagues must take from the successful auction of those zero-coupon schatz bunds is that the single currency simply isn't working.

All the money wants to flow in one direction: towards Germany. It is only the efforts of the European Central Bank, as a giant recycler of liquidity to dry areas of the eurozone banking system, that is ensuring a stability of sorts. This position can't be sustained.

You would be hard-pressed to identify any shift in sentiment in Germany, however. Eurozone politicians had dinner in Brussels on Wednesday and most came away hungry. Mariano Rajoy in Spain is screaming that his country can't afford to keep paying 6% to borrow over 10 years. François Hollande in France and Mario Monti in Italy want to see the introduction of eurobonds, a system of joint issuance of debts. But their prayers have so far gone unanswered, because Germany is not persuaded, even after the rest of the world's most powerful leaders, led by Barack Obama, ganged up on Merkel at last weekend's G8 summit at Camp David.

Her reluctance is, of course, understandable. First, Germany's interest costs would rise, perhaps by €50bn a year, if eurozone members were to borrow collectively, instead of as individual countries. And in the event of one country suffering a crisis, stronger governments – for which read Germany – would be on the hook.

Second, eurobonds, at least in their purest incarnation, would require massively increased integration of eurozone tax and spending policies – probably far beyond even the terms of the Merkel-sponsored fiscal compact.

Third, German voters would still be likely to object: there remains a powerful myth that post-unification Germany pulled itself up by its own bootstraps and that the advantages of being part of the euro were merely coincidental.

A leaked Merkel plan to impose a package of German-style reforms on Greece – including mass privatisation of public assets, slashing employment protections and throwing open the doors to foreign investors – was a reminder last week of what Berlin believes has been at the heart of its own economic success. The proposals are based on the measures adopted in post-reunification east Germany; yet that ignores the fact that there were simultaneously massive fiscal transfers from west to east, funded through a hefty "solidarity tax".

The policy recipe imposed on the rest of Europe by the Merkozy double act over the past four years has comprehensively failed: much of the eurozone is in, or close to, recession, while the debts of Greece, Portugal, Ireland – and increasingly Spain and Italy – remain unpayable.

If the weakest economies in the eurozone were cut loose, with Greece first over the cliff, as some believe the Germans would secretly like, it's a profound mistake to think Germany's mighty economy could simply return to business as usual, even once the immediate fallout had died down.

Germany has enjoyed a large and lucrative captive market among its eurozone neighbours over the past decade, and if they plunged out of the single currency, they would suddenly become rivals with currencies far too weak to afford nearly as many BMWs and Mercedes – and potentially weak enough to compete with Germany in key export markets.

A "core" euro, made up of Germany and its strongest neighbours, would be likely to appreciate sharply on the foreign exchange markets, making German goods more expensive for consumers outside Europe, in the US and the Far East.

In other words, Germany has been quietly reaping economic dividends from its membership of the single currency over the past decade, and it will now have to decide whether it's willing to pay a solidarity tax on a euro-wide scale. With three more weeks to go until the Greek election, and opinion polls suggesting the anti-austerity Syriza party may win the popular vote, it's decision time in Berlin, just as much as in Athens.

Why Stephen Hester deserves a bit of credit

Royal Bank of Scotland's annual meeting on 30 May on Wednesday will not be a slumber-fest (they never are) but it's also a fair bet that Edinburgh will not shake over pay and bonuses. Why? Well, in February chief executive Stephen Hester took the sensible course of talking candidly about his pay, bankers' rewards in general and the task of defusing the RBS "time bomb."

Hester's appearance on Radio 4's Today programme did not come out of the blue. It was preceded by weeks of political argy-bargy and debate over his £1m bonus (which he turned down in the end). But the effect of the interview was fascinating. Rather than appearing as the caricature of a fatcat banker, Hester came across as a rounded individual doing a difficult job in an imperfect marketplace. It should have been clear to most listeners that he could probably earn more in a softer job elsewhere.

Of course, nobody imagines that Hester is motivated solely by a sense of national duty. He enjoys a salary of £1.2m and at least part of the reason he agreed to lead the RBS salvage operation was to make a lot more on top – as he would have done via his incentive package if RBS's share price had gone up, instead of halving from the level at which UK taxpayers invested.

But at least Hester was willing to concede that, after a "hubristic" period of "overexpansion" by banks, the public is entitled to be interested in pay. Given that RBS is 83% owned by the taxpayer, perhaps the point is obvious. But you don't hear others in banking, or even targets of shareholder revolt elsewhere, willing to engage in the same way. The annual meeting – a stage-managed event at which the chairman controls the microphone and questioning is less than forensic – is as close as they usually come.

Their silence speaks volumes. It suggests too many corporate bosses fear being exposed as the lucky beneficiaries of a high-pay culture that, for 20 years, has failed to deliver an improvement in corporate performance. If they feel differently, they're free to speak up.

Autonomy staff's painful lack of perspective

Last week's abrupt departure from Hewlett-Packard of Mike Lynch, the boss and founder of UK software success Autonomy, confirmed what some had suspected for a while – that HP's takeover of the funky Cambridge startup, far from turbo-charging its growth, had caused a mass exodus of top staff. However, when senior Autonomy figures told the FT on Friday that the experience of having to comply with HP's bureaucratic internal controls and join a rash of dull teleconferences was like "waterboarding", they took things too far.

Lynch himself trousered $800m (£500m) from last year's deal, and had apparently been touting his firm around Silicon Valley seeking the highest bidder; many senior executives also made small (or large) fortunes from their share holdings in the firm. HP has put $11bn on the line; it's hardly surprising it wants to check up on what's happening with its investment. Dialling into the odd teleconference may be tiresome; it's certainly not torture.

=

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 09:23 AM

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ichelle-malkin

May 25, 2012 12:00 A.M.
Obama’s Land of the LOST
The Law of the Treaty is a huge attack on American sovereignty.
Comments 6
By Michelle Malkin

What’s green and blue and grabby all over? President Obama’s new pressure campaign for Congress to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

The fight over LOST goes back three decades, when it was first rejected by President Ronald Reagan. He warned that “no national interest of the United States could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to the Third World.” According to top Reagan officials William Clark and Ed Meese, their boss believed the treaty’s “central, and abiding, defect” was “its effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states — and most especially the United States.”

The persistent transnationalists who drafted LOST favor creation of a massive United Nations bureaucracy that would draw ocean boundaries, impose environmental regulations, and restrict business on the high seas. They’ve tinkered with the document obsessively since the late Sixties, enlisted Presidents Clinton and Bush, and recruited soon-to-depart GOP Sen. Dick Lugar to their crusade. Ignore the mushy save-the-planet rhetoric. Here’s the bottom line: Crucial national-security decisions about our naval and drilling operations would be subject to the vote of 162 other signatories, including Cuba, China, and Russia.

While our sovereignty would be redistributed around the world, most of the funding for the massive LOST regulatory body would come from — you guessed it! — the United States. Forbes columnist Larry Bell reports that “as much as 7 percent of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast” would be meted out to “poorer, landlocked countries.” This confiscatory act of environmental justice would siphon billions, if not trillions, away from Americans. International royalties would be imposed; an international tribunal would be set up to mediate disputes. There would be no opportunity for court appeals in the United States.

LOST is just the latest waterlogged power grab by the Obama administration. As I reported in 2010, the White House, through executive order, seized unprecedented control from states and localities over “conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.” Obama created a 27-member “National Ocean Council” by administrative fiat; the council is specifically tasked with implementing ocean-management plans “in accordance with customary international law, including as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention.”

The panel is chaired by radical-green science czar John Holdren (notorious for his cheerful musings about eugenics, mass sterilization, and forced abortions to protect Mother Earth, and for hyping weather catastrophes and demographic disasters in the 1970s with his population-control pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich) and White House Council on Environmental Quality head Nancy Sutley (best known as the immediate boss of disgraced green-jobs czar and avowed Communist Van Jones).

Other members include Dr. Jane Lubchenco — head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a former high-ranking official at the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund, which has long championed draconian reductions of commercial fishing fleets and recreational fishing activity in favor of centralized control — and fraudster Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who doctored the administration’s drilling-moratorium report.

It is not hyperbole to expose LOST’s socialist roots. Meddling Marxist Elisabeth Mann Borgese, the godmother of the global ocean regulatory scheme, made no bones about it: “He who rules the sea,” she exulted, “rules the land.” LOST is a radical giveaway of American sovereignty in the name of environmental protection. And it should be sunk once and for all.

— Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies. © 2012 Creators.Com.

_______

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...25/white_whale

White Whale
Why the black helicopter crowd goes crazy over the Law of the Sea Treaty.
BY DAVID WEIGEL | MAY 25, 2012
Comments 8

The military wants it. Business wants it. But to get it, they have to get past conservatives who simply don't trust the United Nations -- or, more specifically, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The treaty has spooked them ever since 1982, when it opened for signature, even though it has been widely supported by their more moderate Republican brethren. Whatever specific qualms its opponents raise, the treaty's real problem is that in the last 30 years, compulsive U.N. skepticism has moved from the fringes of the GOP into its mainstream.

The right's fear that the United States might somehow give up its sovereignty to the one-worlders at Turtle Bay has driven the treaty's supporters to distraction. At a Senate hearing held Wednesday to explore the possibility of American ratification, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has largely shed her negative 90s-era image, slipped into the lingo of the Janet Reno/Ruby Ridge era. "[I've] heard we should not join this convention because, quote, 'It's a U.N. treaty,'" said Clinton, "and of course that means the black helicopters are on their way." Opposition to the treaty, she said, is "unfortunate because it's opposition based in ideology and mythology, not in facts."

Republicans were unconvinced. "Most wars we've fought have been fought over ideology and philosophy," said Idaho's Sen. Jim Risch, who's been winning elections in his state since 1970. "If we give up one scintilla of sovereignty that this country has fought, has bled for, and have given up our treasure and the best that America has, I can't vote for it."

The Law of the Sea Treaty, as the convention is commonly known, was written to standardize maritime law (which is why the Navy supports it) and create some authority for the use of resources found in or at the bottom of international waters (which is why the Chamber of Commerce supports it). And even though it was negotiated at the United Nations, the U.N. doesn't actually have any control over the treaty's implementation -- there's a distinct organization to handle that.

But the treaty spooked conservatives straightaway. Before it was even finalized, President Reagan worried that "the deep seabed mining part of the convention does not meet United States objectives." Ultimately, he refused to sign the treaty for that very reason, but even that rejection wasn't enough for the right wing of his party -- probably because Reagan said he would nevertheless abide by the rest of the treaty's terms, which he found sensible. In 1983, around six months after the treaty was completed, Sen. Jesse Helms put a hold on Reagan's nominee for ambassador to El Salvador. Thomas Pickering, said Helms, had raised disturbing questions just by participating in the Law of the Sea Conference.

From there, the treaty got stuck in U.N.-skeptic limbo. George H.W. Bush began renegotiating its mining provisions so the U.S. could sign on, a process that Bill Clinton's foreign-policy team continued. "There are still parts that need to be resolved," said incoming U.N. ambassador Madeline Albright at her 1993 Senate confirmation hearing, "but I think we should pursue it." One year later -- after fixing the provisions that had irritated Reagan (with a little advice from the business community) -- Albright signed it. In 1996, even Helms had started to soften, admitting at one hearing that "ratification of this treaty does not in any way place the United States in any way under the jurisdiction of the Law of the Sea Treaty."

But it was impossible to get the Senate to approve it. The mining issue had been replaced by a fear of communist nukes. In 1998, when the president made a real push, the boldest "hell no" case came from a Reagan DOD vet named Frank Gaffney. The Chinese, he warned the Senate, had the capability to "discover undersea bastions in which to conceal and operate their ballistic missile submarines." Ratify the Law of the Sea and you'd give them "legal cover for further transfers of this sort of equipment." Whatever that meant.

The George W. Bush administration came in fully intending to ratify the treaty. But a new era -- we could call it the "Gaffney/Inhofe era" -- had begun. Gaffney materialized whenever treaty opponents needed intellectual ballast. His Center for Security Policy was an armory for pro-sovereignty, pro-defense buildup arguments. Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe got to the Senate in 2002, the year Helms retired. The torch was passed. In 2004, when the Foreign Relations Committee took up the treaty, Inhofe pushed against it, questioning the "implications of this convention on our national security."

He rang the alarm about article 207 of the treaty, which says that "states shall adopt laws and regulations for pollution from land-based sources." That sounded a lot like the U.N. making environmental law for Americans. And Inhofe wouldn't stand for it. He pounded that theme relentlessly as Gaffney lined up more support from the conservative movement's grassroots. The treaty passed out of committee, but thanks to conservative efforts it never came up for a full Senate vote. A year later, with the Senate GOP's numbers swelled to 55, Gaffney was writing that the treaty was favored by "actual or potential adversaries," and would "prevent us from performing vital intelligence-collection activities."

In Gaffney's corner: Everything from Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum to Jeane Kirkpatrick to the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute to the columns of Pat Buchanan. ("Should the U.N. be lord of the oceans?") In Inhofe's corner: A new team of conservatives like Jim DeMint, who only needed to hear the letters "U" and "N" to know what they were against. So, in 2007, when the committee took up the treaty again -- and passed it again -- the full Senate still refused to act. And by 2009, when a self-proclaimed "citizen of the world" became president, it hardly mattered that he had 59 Democrats in the Senate. If Obama was for the treaty, conservatives had to be against it. By Obama's first summer, Republicans had put together a brand-new "House Sovereignty Caucus." Gaffney spoke at its first meeting.

This week, when Clinton testified, she was looking right at the conservatives' latest victim. Sen. Richard Lugar, ranking member of the committee, had just been demolished -- a 20-point loss -- in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Next year, instead of sending a gravelly supporter of the treaty to Washington, Indiana will probably send the reliably right-wing Richard Mourdock.

Greg Fettig, an Indiana conservative activist, helped lead Hoosiers for a Conservative Senate -- a group that aided Mourdock's campaign. "The treaty was one of the real strikes against Lugar," explains Fettig. "I heard him talking about it ... and either he's misrepresenting reality or he's clueless. He's talking about the melting polar ice caps, shipping lanes. In reality, what the treaty means is the loss of our sovereignty, our mineral rights in territorial waters."

That belief is just too widespread to snuff out. Clinton tried mockery. At other points in her testimony, she tried another tactic. "While we sit on the sidelines," said Clinton, "Russia and other countries are carving up the Arctic and laying claims to the oil and gas riches in that region." If the "black helicopter" crowd won't trust the U.N., maybe it can be spooked into beating the Russians.

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 09:26 AM

=

Stock Market Crash Alert,
Market is Falling Like a Stone

Stock-Markets / Financial Crash
May 26, 2012 - 10:04 AM
By: Mike_Whitney
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34865.html

As you might have noticed, the stock market is falling like a stone. German 2-year debt (bund) has dipped below 0% this morning at auction, signalling an acceleration in the bank run taking place in southern Europe. Depositors in Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, etc would rather take a loss on their investment, then risk not their money back at all. The European Central Bank (ECB) does not guarantee deposits, so people are withdrawing their money en masse and getting out of Dodge pronto. What we're seeing is a real-time panic.

The ostensible trigger for the panic is known, but you won't read about it in the financial media where the news is dumbed down to the point of incoherence. What's really going on is that the German central bank (The Bundesbank) has indicated that it's ready to pull the plug on Greece which means that future bailouts will probably not be forthcoming. That's bad. It means that Greece will run out of money some time in June; their banking system will implode, and the "birthplace of democracy" will be reduced to 3rd world status overnight. Here's a blurb from the Bundesbank's communique:

"Current developments in Greece are extremely worrying. Greece is threatening not to implement the reform and consolidation measures that were agreed in return for the large-scale aid programmes.

This jeopardises the continued provision of assistance. Greece would have to bear the consequences of such a scenario. The challenges this would create for the euro area and Germany would be considerable, but manageable given prudent crisis management. By contrast, a significant dilution of existing agreements would damage confidence in all euro-area agreements and treaties and strongly weaken incentives for national reform and consolidation measures. In such circumstances the institutional status quo comprising liability, control and individual responsibility of member states would be fundamentally called into question.

When the Eurosystem provided Greece with large amounts of liquidity, it trusted that the programs would be implemented and thereby ultimately assumed considerable risks. In the light of the current situation, it should not significantly increase these risks. Instead, the parliaments and governments of the member states should decide on the manner in which any further financial assistance is provided and therefore whether the associated risks should be assumed."

Okay. So German central bankers don't want to wait until the June elections in Greece to decide whether to provide more money or not. They're throwing in the towel now. No more money. No more bailouts. No more Mr. Niceguy. End of story. But what does that mean? Does it mean that the whole global financial system is headed back into the shitter again like after Lehman Brothers?

No one knows for sure, but there's bound to be a few bumps in the road, don't you think? Take a look at this from Bloomberg today (Wed):

“Europe’s banks, are sitting on $1.19 trillion of debt to Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland, are facing a wave of losses if Greece abandons the euro. While lenders have increased capital buffers, written down Greek bonds and used central-bank loans to help refinance units in southern Europe, they remain vulnerable to the contagion that might follow a withdrawal, investors say. Even with more than two years of preparation, banks still are at risk of deposit flight and rising defaults in other indebted euro nations.” (Bloomberg)

Can you really slash a trillion bucks out of the rotting corpse of the EU banking system and still keep things running smoothly?

Don't bet on it. Here's more from Bloomberg:

"The ECB’s unprecedented provision of 1.02 trillion euros in three-year cash in December and February helped calm financial markets in the first quarter by removing concern that banks unwilling to lend to one another would run out of cash. Lenders in Spain and Italy also used the funds to buy sovereign debt, reducing government borrowing costs....

Lenders probably would need another 800 billion-euro liquidity lifeline from the ECB to help stem contagion from a Greek exit, Citigroup analysts estimated in a May 17 note...." (Bloomberg)

That's right, the EU banks were gifted over 1 trillion euros 3 months ago, and they're still too undercapitalized to weather the storm of a Greek default. Nice, eh? So, the whole system is just an empty gourd, right? They're broke, so the ECB will have to print up another 800 bil just to keep the house of cards from collapsing in a heap.

Getting worried yet?

US Treasuries are also rallying big today. In fact, the yield on the 10-year --which hit a record low last week--is on its way back down indicating that investors are freaking scared-out-of-their-minds. In real terms, investors are now socking money into 10-year Treasuries knowing that (inflation adjusted) they'll get LESS money back then they put in.

How do you like them apples? That's what I call a full-blown panic! And yet, you ain't hearing a blasted thing about it on the news, right? Why would that be?

Here's a little icing on the cake from Bloomberg:

"Greece may have only a 46-hour window of opportunity should it need to plot a route out of the euro.

That’s how much time the country’s leaders would probably have to enact any departure from the single currency while global markets are largely closed, from the end of trading in New York on a Friday to Monday’s market opening ....

“I am completely convinced they could not orchestrate an orderly exit,” said Erik Nielsen, chief economist at UniCredit SpA in London. “This is a country that can’t implement laws, so how in the world are they going to secretly agree to print money, control the banks, control capital flows and think this is going to be orderly? It’s completely impossible.” ...

“There is no reason to think there won’t be riots and violence,” said Lefteris Farmakis, a strategist at Nomura International Plc in London. “It would be a pretty disastrous situation. People have no understanding of the consequences of a euro exit.” ("War-Gaming Greek Euro Exit Shows Hazards in 46-Hour Weekend", Bloomberg)

Riots, street violence, skyrocketing unemployment, grinding poverty...the whole schmeer. And what's the most likely scenario for Greece after all that?

Well, probably another military coup backed by President Hopium and his band of CIA merry pranksters, right?

Okay, my bad. I don't want to polarize all the Obama fans, but, Geez Louise, things are looking mighty grim for the poor Greeks, don't you think?

Of course, it all could go smoothly "without a hitch"; no credit crunch, no bank runs, no flight to safety, no crashing stock markets, no decades of struggle and social unrest, no splitting up of the eurozone, no ethnic animosities, no uber-nationalism, no right wing fanaticism, no border skirmishes or armed hostilities, no revolutions, no depression, no rise of fascism...just a smooth transition to a new, slimmed-down version of the EZ. After all, that's what Germany is expecting. And they could be right.

But, probably not.

By Mike Whitney

=

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

=

Panetta: U.S. is Ready to Stop Iran
from Creating Nuclear Weapons

By Beth Reinhard
Updated: May 27, 2012 | 9:08 a.m.
May 27, 2012 | 8:55 a.m.
http://nationaljournal.com/nationals...apons-20120527

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Sunday indirectly confirmed recent remarks by the Ambassador to Israel that the U.S. is “ready from a military perspective’’ to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon if international pressure fails.

The U.S. and members of the United Nations Security Council recently met in Baghdad for talks about Iran’s suspected nuclear weapon program. Iran denies it has military intentions but has called for the destruction of Israel.

“We have plans to be able to implement any contingency we have to in order to defend ourselves,’’ Panetta said on ABC’s This Week. Earlier, Panetta said, “The fundamental premise is that neither the United States or the international community is going to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.’’

Panetta defended the U.S. military’s use of drones to kill terrorists, resulting in some civilian casualties, calling them “one of the most precise weapons that we have in our arsenal.’’

He also insisted that the administration did not share any “inappropriate’’ details with filmmakers making a movie about Osama bin Laden, despite criticism from members of Congress.

=

That has got to be one of the finest examples of political/diplomatic double talk/BS I've seen in quite a while.

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 09:30 AM

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/27/world/...ups/index.html

Rebel groups join forces, vowing an Islamic state
From Katarina Höije, For CNN
updated 10:14 AM EDT, Sun May 27, 2012

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

A separatist and an Islamist group vow to run an independent Islamic state
The Tuareg group MNLA and the Islamist group Ansar Dine made the announcement
Some from the occupied region say the groups don't have the people's support
Regional leaders are working on a solution

(CNN) -- Two key rebel movements in Mali have agreed to join forces, saying together they will rule an independent Islamic state.

The Tuareg group MNLA and the Islamist group Ansar Dine occupying northern Mali reached the deal after a series of talks, according to both groups.

Gunfire was heard in two major towns in the region -- Gao and Timbuktu -- as militants celebrated their decision to form a body to oversee Azawad. Several weeks ago, rebels declared independence for the region, the cradle of their nomadic civilization.

But not everyone celebrated the news Sunday. Some who come from the region occupied by rebels said the separatist and Islamist movements do not have the people's support.

"The Ansar Dine movement and the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, MNLA, have proclaimed an independent state, Azawad," MNLA colonel Abdou Haidara announced.

The movements reached their agreement in Gao, a town in the north where leaders have been meeting.

Hassan Ag Mohamad, a former Ansar Dine official, said the two groups are now one. "Before we were Ansar Dine and MNLA. Now it's all the same."

As gunfire rang out Saturday evening, people afraid of clashes between the two movements immediately returned to their homes.

"I was very afraid when they started shooting, and it was only later I realized the militants were celebrating," said Gao resident Haraji Baber.

An hour later came reports of shooting from Timbuktu, one of the three major towns in what the rebels call Azawad.

The agreement between the secular Tuareg and the Islamists comes after weeks of sometimes heated discussions between two movements, separated both in their objectives and ideologies. While the MNLA is fighting for an independent Azawad, Ansar Dine's main objective is to impose Sharia law in all of Mali.

In the besieged towns, drinking, smoking, listening to music, watching soccer on TV and playing video games have been banned in what now seems to be a preparation for the creation of an Islamic state.

"We are all in favor of the independence of Azawad. We accept Islam as the religion but other religious views will be accepted," said MNLA Colonel Haidara.

Some former officials in the region disagreed.

"Nobody in Gao can accept this convention. I can't accept it," said Sadou Diallo, the mayor of Gao.

Since MNLA took his town, the mayor is a refugee in the Mali capital Bamako.

"This declaration marks a major turning point for northern Mali. Since the March coup, the area has slipped out of the government's control. Now there's no turning back. People have no choice but to accept the rebels and the Islamist decision. They have no way of defending themselves. I believe Gao is lost."

Diallo added that he is very disappointed by the government's inability to free the region from occupiers.

In January, the Tuareg rebels launched an offensive against the Malian army. The fight intensified with the arrival of Ansar Dine and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

On March 22, Capt. Amadou Haya Sanogo and a group of low-ranking officers ousted the government in Bamako, saying it was incompetent in handling the Tuareg rebellion.

The coup and power vacuum which followed enabled the Tuaregs, Ansar Dine, led by Iyad Ag Ghaly, and backed by AQIM and criminal groups, to occupy the vast north of Mali, an area larger than France.

Together, they pushed back the army. On April 6, in a statement posted on its website, the MNLA declared the independence of Azawad.

The new agreement between the MNLA and Ansar Dine leaves AQIM's position unclear.

"AQIM left Gao this morning. They are not a problem anymore," said MNLA Colonel Haidara. The information could not be confirmed immediately.

The declaration of the Republic of Azawad adds to the long list of issues to be solved by the transitional government in Bamako and ECOWAS, the Economic Community Of West African States.

On Saturday the prime minister and leader of Mali's transitional government, Cheick Modibo Diarra, arrived in Abidjan for talks with ECOWAS head Alassane Ouattara, the president of Ivory Coast.

Mali's interim president Dioncounda Traore is in France for medical treatment after the 70-year-old was assaulted by protesters in his office in the presidential palace on Monday. He is expected to return to Bamako next week.

Traore was appointed in April to lead the long-term transition after ECOWAS mediators managed to form a deal with coup leader Sanogo, stating he will step aside with all the benefits of a former head of state and allow the leaders in Bamako to prepare for elections, as well as find a solution for the north.

**The Flying Dutchman** · 05-27-2012 09:31 AM

=

May 27, 2012 at 08:27:13

The First Domino Falls in Greece

By shamus cooke (about the author)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The...20521-165.html

After the last Greek elections rejected austerity and caused a global uproar, early polling indicates that the next Greek elections -- scheduled for June 17 -- will do the same, albeit with more fury.

Greece's situation is not an isolated event, but a bellwether for the industrial world and beyond. The fallout from the 2008 global crisis hasn't reached bottom yet, and the depths will be dug deeper as the Euro crisis spreads -- political crisis will create economic crisis and vice versa, as periods of calm and stability are replaced by international turmoil and panic.

The media and politicians have portrayed the Greeks as indolent and stupid, refusing to swallow the economic medicine needed for a healthy recovery. But the austerity medicine of the bankers -- slashing and privatizing the public sector, cutting wages and benefits, mass layoffs, etc. -- is a cure that threatens to kill.

What will happen in Greece? Its future was hinted at in the last elections. The centrist parties were devastated by the reality of economic extremes; the "middle ground" simply fell out from under them, since society had been torn asunder by the inequality of the very rich versus everybody else.

In consequence, the radical left party SYRIZA is polled to come in first in the next elections, based on its firm stance against austerity and its uncompromising attitude against the bankers of Greece and beyond. The corporate politicians wanted SYRIZA to take part in a "unity government" that would magically rebuild the country's lost middle ground and continue the pro-banker austerity policies.

But unity in an economically polarized country like Greece is impossible, especially when the continued existence of the bankers and wealthy rests on the continued suffering of everybody else.

Since unity failed during the last elections, Greek "technocrats" are now overseeing the government until the next elections. What is a technocrat? Someone who supposedly lacks any class bias; the professional strata of professors, lawyers, or doctors that attempt to sit astride an uneven society perfectly balanced, blind to special interests, while keeping their sights set on the "national interest." But the Greek technocrats are continuing the wealthy's austerity program, exposing their fake objectivity.

Europe has a long history of unity governments, technocratic governments, and "national salvation governments" (a fancy, more alarmist term for a unity government). In every case the status quo attempts to consolidate itself yet again, trying to muddle through the crisis by putting forth new politicians that have yet to expose themselves as corporate puppets.

What will SYRIZA do if it places first in the next election? A left government could be created -- only if the Greek Communist Party agrees -- with a plan to get Greece's working people out of its current abyss.

But the Greek bankers and EU bank-bought politicians will keep a gun to the head of a left government, striving to either tame or crush it. Threats will be made to withdraw European bailout funds if an anti-austerity path is taken; the wealthy who invest in Greek debt will run for a safe haven (those who haven't already).

Therefore, the Greek lefts must go "all out;" drastic action is needed. The Greek banks should be nationalized, which SYRIZA has already promised to do; the wealth of the rich must be redistributed through progressive taxation and, where necessary, confiscated (such "extreme" measures are necessary when there is no wealth to be found elsewhere).

These extreme solutions are the only answers to the extremity of austerity. Most importantly, if the Greeks took drastic action against the corporate class, it would set an example for the world to follow. People everywhere would be inspired to fix the crisis on the backs of the wealthy versus working people.

If a left government fails to take drastic action or submits to the bankers, its popularity will plummet, and the right wing will be empowered by using the demagoguery of anti-immigration rhetoric. The Greek Golden Dawn Party (neo-Nazi) used this tactic effectively in the last election to propel itself into parliament for the first time, though it is greatly outnumbered by the forces on the left at this time.

The balance of power lies on the side of the left in Greece: the working class has been radicalized and will not submit; mass demonstrations and general strikes have become common place. But power can fluctuate quickly in times of crisis. Unless the left takes drastic action in Greece, a long period of political instability is likely, with the left and right taking turns at power, attempting to solve the country's economic and political problems by different methods that favor different social classes. The right wing will seek to "tame" the trade unions and implement austerity, the workers will seek to tame the bankers and the corporations and tax their wealth.

But in a polarized, crisis-plagued country like Greece, a showdown is inevitable. Stability can only be found when one class is forced to submit to the other, since there now exist two powers in the country -- corporate power and people power.

It's possible that, after a long period of instability that weakens the left, the right wing will attempt to impose "stability" through dictatorship, for the "national interest." But the army is too weak at this time and the workers too strong; a premature military move would likely spark an even harsher response from the workers.

Greek austerity has accelerated the Greek economic crisis, but austerity is a global problem. It is the bank and corporate answer to an economic crisis which resulted from their passing their private debts onto the public purse, while pushing down wages low enough for these same corporations and banks to regain growth through "profitability."

The global crisis is structural in nature -- the industrial world has huge debt with little or no growth. The rich insist growth (profits) must be made on the backs of the workers, who are being made to work harder for lower wages, fewer benefits, and fewer social programs.

Therefore, all over the world the media reports that worker's wages are too high, their benefits too lush; social programs are suddenly too expensive and must be slashed alongside education, transportation, and other essentials of a civilized society. Unions and immigrants are made to be enemies of the public. Yet more and more working people are coming to the realization that the blame for the crisis must be placed on those who caused it -- the banks and corporations -- and they must be made to pay for it.

=

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 09:37 AM

Hummmm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

USAF Outlines Nuke Weapon Inventory Modernization
May. 24, 2012 - 03:33PM |
By MARCUS WEISGERBER | Comments

The U.S. Air Force is moving ahead with plans to modernize its inventory of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, a top service general said.

The Air Force plans to maintain and modernize its Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles and extend the life of the air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) so both last until at least 2030, according to Maj. Gen. William Chambers, assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration at the Pentagon.

The ALCM improvement programs include the guidance and flight control system and warhead arming components.

At the same time, the Air Force plans to modernize the B-2 stealth bomber and keep flying the B-52 bomber “until a replacement capability comes online,” Chambers said.

“The B-52 has recently seen some of the highest readiness rates in its 60-year history,” he said during a May 24 speech sponsored by the National Defense Industrial Association. “It remains one of our most flexible airframes and one of the least expensive to operate.”

Replacements for the Minuteman III and ALCM also are in the works.

The Air Force also has “dual capable plans ready as the F-35 program matures,” Chambers said. This would allow the Joint Strike Fighter to launch nuclear weapons, like today’s F-15E and F-16 fighter jets.

Service officials have made “significant strides in assessing and modernizing the nation’s nuclear command-and-control network,” and have established a baseline nuclear command, control and communications architecture, Chambers said.

“We’re focused on a very prioritized investment strategy concentrating on our senior leadership aircraft, our bomber fleet and multiple cryptographic improvements,” he said.

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 09:42 AM

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18226128

27 May 2012 Last updated at 06:43 ET

Lloyd's 'has plans for euro collapse'
Richard Ward Richard Ward told the Telegraph: "I'm quite worried about Europe."

Eurozone crisis

Spain's blame game
Q&A: Is Santander UK safe?
Q&A: Spain's woes
What if Greece leaves the euro?

The insurance market Lloyd's of London is preparing contingency plans for the possibility of the euro collapsing, its chief executive has said.

With Greece facing new elections in June and anti-bailout feelings high, there are fears Athens may be forced to exit the eurozone.

In a Sunday Telegraph interview, Richard Ward said Lloyd's needs to "prepare for that eventuality".

He said that Lloyd's would settle claims using multiple currencies.

Mr Ward is one of the first bosses of a large UK business to admit he is planning for the end of the euro.

Lloyd's of London is a market in which syndicates meet brokers and agree to take on particular risks.
'Quite worried'

Greece has implemented tough austerity measures in return for two multi-billion-euro bailouts, but five years of recession has seen the Greek people become increasingly opposed to pro-austerity politicians.

Many analysts think that Greece may abandon the austerity measures and be forced out of the euro if the leftist bloc Syriza, which came second in Greece's 6 May election, wins on 17 June.

This could potentially trigger a run on banks not only in Greece but in other eurozone nations.

"We've got multi-currency functionality and we would switch to multi-currency settlement if the Greeks abandoned the euro and started using the drachma again," Mr Ward told the newspaper.

"I don't think that if Greece exited the euro it would lead to the collapse of the eurozone, but what we need to do is prepare for that eventuality."

He added: "I'm quite worried about Europe."

In March, Lloyd's announced a loss of £516m for 2011, saying it was its worst year for catastrophe claims such as the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the earthquake in New Zealand.
Euro woes

Mr Ward's comments come as more and more politicians and business leaders talk of a Greek exit.

In an interview with the Guardian newspaper, the head of the International Monetary Fund urged Greeks to pay taxes.

Christine Lagarde also suggested it was payback time for Greece.

In addition to a Greek exit, investors are also worried about what would happen if other ailing economies like Spain and Italy followed suit.

On Friday, Spain's Bankia said it needed 19bn euros more from the government - the biggest bailout ever - as it and fellow regional banks struggle under a mountain of bad property debt.

Stocks have fallen over the past few weeks while on Friday the euro tumbled to under $1.25 for the first time since July 2010.

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 11:19 AM

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iran.../20120527.aspx

How Much Pain?

May 27, 2012: Iran is at war, and has been for decades. But their weapons are not the conventional tanks, warplanes and ships. Instead Iran uses cash, to buy allies (especially in Lebanon and Syria), a special force (Quds) to advise friendly dictators how to remain in power, or pro-Iran rebels (as in Bahrain, Yemen, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere) on how to smash the state. At home, Iran practices what it preaches, using secret police and a pro-government militia (Basij) to terrorize opponents. Iran also funds pro-Iran media support wherever it can, via pro-Iran media outlets, or simply by bribing journalists. Cash is an all-purpose weapon. In Syria, Iran is willing to provide up to a billion dollars a month to finance essential imports that are essential to keep the pro-Iran government in power. The Iranian government budget is $453 billion a year, so that billion a month is a major sacrifice for cash-strapped Iran. Because the Iranian currency is rapidly losing value against foreign currencies, the government budget's buying power outside the country is closer to $300 billion.

What annoys most Iranians the most is that all this talent and cash is being wasted on keeping a corrupt religious dictatorship going. Iranians have always been the most economically, and militarily successful group in the region, but those talents were often wasted to keep corrupt Iranian despots in power. Iranians, who leave the motherland, especially for the West, do very well for themselves. But at home, opportunities are much more limited, and enterprise and free-thinking is discouraged. Most Iranians would like a less corrupt and restrictive government, but that will take time. In the past, the corrupt and inefficient tyrannies eventually fall apart, but it can take a long time. After all, the tyrants are Iranians, and even the evil ones are a clever and resourceful bunch. Few Iranians want to start a civil war over this, and that helps prolong the misrule.

The economic sanctions have blocked the importation of a lot of basic goods Iran has been able to depend on China to prevent any shortages. Chinese goods are cheaper, and often of lower quality than Iranians are used to. But the worst part of allowing China to export whatever it can sell in Iran is the disruption it causes. In the past, Iran has restricted Chinese imports, to protect local retailers and manufacturers. But now Iran is desperate for someone able to ignore the sanctions, and the only major supplier willing to do that is China. In return, China wants no restrictions. That means thousands of Chinese are coming to Iran to set up their own retail operations. This puts Iranians out of work, and the Chinese migrants are not popular.

The Western economic sanctions are hurting, but not enough for Iran to consider shutting down its officially non-existent nuclear weapons program. Most Iranians are willing to make some, but not a lot, of personal sacrifices to keep the nuclear program going. How much pain will the public endure? That is a question that keeps Iranian leaders up nights. No one really knows.

One reason the clerics stay in power is that they don't spend a lot on the military. Most of the money goes to keeping their core supporters (about a quarter of the population who are Islamic conservatives or just willing to be bought and stay bought) happy, and providing just enough economic benefits for the rest to avoid a popular uprising. The Iranian military is presented as a mighty force, even though it is a equipped largely with worn out or obsolete equipment. Propaganda makes up for some of this, as the military is constantly announcing wonderful new weapons designed and built in Iran. But most of this stuff is crap, and little of the new gear is actually built in quantity. Besides, there are two armed forces. One is the usual army, navy and air force. The other, the Revolutionary Guard (and their reserve force, the Basij) are better equipped and trained. The regular armed forces are there to scare hostile neighbors; the Revolutionary Guard is there to scare hostile Iranians.

Bahrain will no longer use Arabsat communications satellites to send Bahraini TV news out to the Arab world. This is done to protest the refusal of Arabsat to censor Iranian propaganda broadcasts, urging Shia Arabs to overthrow Sunni Arab governments. While Arabsat is owned and operated by Arabs, it wants to maintain good relations with Iran, and convince the Iranians to halt the jamming of some Arabsat broadcasts into Iran.

Inside Iran, the government continues to jail and punish any journalists that oppose, or just offend, the government. The secret police pursue and punish real or suspected reformers. There is fear upon the land, and that's what the religious dictatorship wants.

May 26, 2012: A senior general in the Revolutionary Guard reminded the world that Iran's ballistic missiles could strike anywhere in the Middle East (at least as far west as Egypt). What the general did not discuss was the reliability of all those missiles, which is believed to be low. Iran has put the emphasis on building lots of missiles, not quality control.

May 25, 2012: The UN IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) issued a report that recent inspections in Iran had found traces of uranium that had been enriched more than needed for power plant fuel. Natural uranium is only about one percent fissile (explosive) material. It must be enriched to 20-40 percent to be used in a nuclear power plant, and up to 85 percent for nuclear weapons. You can still build a low-power nuclear weapon with uranium enriched to lower levels (down to 20-30 percent). Iran denied that it was producing weapons grade uranium and claimed that the IAEA team found traces of uranium that was accidentally enriched just a bit too much.

Last January an inspection team arrived, but was not allowed to inspect nuclear weapons facilities (which Iran insists do not exist, but which IAEA has a list of). Seven months ago, IAEA issued a report accusing Iran of having a nuclear weapons program, and providing lots of details. It appears that the IAEA had help from more than just the few inspectors it was allowed to put inside Iran. The report described a nuclear weapons research facility outside Tehran, and the use of computer simulation to guide the nuclear weapon design process. IAEA believes Iran now has enough enriched uranium for at least three nuclear weapons, but is still encountering technical problems in producing a workable weapon. While Iran officially denies, to foreigners, that it has a nuclear weapons program, inside Iran there is general agreement that the program exists and that it is a great thing for Iran.

Iranian hacker groups are claiming to have gotten into U.S. government networks (like NASA) and stolen data. No proof was provided, and this was dismissed as more Iranian propaganda.

May 16, 2012: The UN accuses Iran of continuing to ship weapons to the dictatorship in Syria, despite the sanctions. Iran denies that it is misbehaving.

Iran executed, by hanging, an Iranian man it accused of being an Israeli agent and murdering an Iranian scientist two years. The accused man confessed, but not very convincingly. In Iran, you can get a confession by threatening severe punishment of someone's family. It's an ancient tactic that still works.

May 15, 2012: Am Iranian cleric has offered $100,000 for anyone who will kill an Iranian living in Germany, who upset Iranian clerics by composing and performing a rap song the clerics found offensive and blasphemous.

May 14, 2012: The government has banned banks, insurance and telecommunications companies from accepting customer email that is not managed by an Iranian provider. That means no foreign email providers (like Gmail or Hotmail). Less use of foreign email providers makes it easier for Iran to eavesdrop on local email, and shut down email in an emergency.

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 11:23 AM

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-ne...ato-airstrike/

Karzai Orders Probe into Latest NATO Airstrike
Posted Sunday, May 27th, 2012 at 11:00 am

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has ordered an investigation into a coalition airstrike that local officials in the eastern part of the country say killed a family of eight.

Earlier Sunday, a government spokesman for Paktia Province, Rohullah Samoon, told VOA a coalition airstrike killed a man, his wife and six children overnight in the Gerda Serai district. He said according to his information, the man was not linked to any insurgent group or any anti-government activities.

A coalition spokeswoman confirmed that NATO returned fire and requested close air support during clashes with insurgents, but she said they are investigating whether civilians died in the fighting.

Civilian casualties have been a source of friction between President Karzai's government and the international coalition in Afghanistan. A NATO airstrike in northeastern Kapisa province earlier this year killed eight children.

Last year, Afghanistan saw a sharp rise in civilian deaths, with more than three-quarters of the 3,000 fatalities blamed on insurgent attacks and 14 percent attributed to international and Afghan forces.

Earlier this month, U.N. special representative to Afghanistan Jan Kubis said civilian casualties are 20 percent lower in the first four months of 2012, compared to the same period last year. Kubis said insurgent attacks, including suicide bombings, still cause the majority of civilian deaths.

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 11:24 AM

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Afghans ‘Concerned’ Over Air Force as NATO Pulls Out
May. 27, 2012 - 11:19AM |
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE | Comments

KABUL — Afghanistan’s defense ministry has expressed concern over the slow pace of developing its air force ahead of a scheduled withdrawal of NATO troops and equipment, the government said May 27.

More than a dozen transport aircraft provided to the Afghan air force by the United States have been grounded because of age, a lack of spares and safety problems, President Hamid Karzai’s office said in a statement.

The issue was raised at a security meeting which was told that the defense ministry was “concerned over the slow pace of reviving the country’s air force” and wanted the U.S. to “intensify its efforts for that end”.

As part of its exit strategy from the Afghan war, the U.S. is helping Kabul build its air force before most air support from NATO forces is withdrawn along with 130,000 troops by the end of 2014.

Fifteen C-27 transport aircraft supposed to provide support to the Afghan army and deliver humanitarian aid had been grounded for two years, defense ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi told AFP.

“The planes were made in Italy, they are old and were out of the Italian fleet before they were given to Afghanistan,” Azimi said.

Air transport is critical in Afghanistan, where the road network is underdeveloped and targeted by insurgent bombings, while strike aircraft are a vital part of the war against Taliban insurgents.

The U.S. Air Force announced last month that it was reopening a contest for a contract to build 20 light attack aircraft for Afghanistan after the cancellation of an award to Brazil’s Embraer two months earlier.

But a final decision for the contract will not be made before early 2013, the Air Force said in a statement, with the first planes due to be delivered in the second half of 2014.

The new schedule will mean “a delay of about 15 months” from original plans, before the Air Force called off the award, the statement said.

Last year, an Afghan air force officer shot dead nine U.S. service members at a training center at Kabul International Airport, one of the deadliest attacks on coalition troops in recent years.

It was one of an increasing number of attacks in which Afghans being trained by NATO troops have turned their weapons on their mentors.

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 11:27 AM

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/ch..._131613899.htm

Afghanistan to ink long-term partnership agreement with China
English.news.cn 2012-05-27 20:36:21

KABUL, May 27 (Xinhua) -- The government of Afghanistan will ink long-term partnership agreement with China, Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rasoul said Sunday. "Afghanistan would sign long-term partnership agreement with the People Republic of China and the agreement will probably be inked during President Hamid Karzai's participation at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit on June 6-7 in China,"Rasoul told a press conference.

He added that Afghanistan in the past had attended the SCO as a guest and it hoped to attend as an observer in the coming summit.

Afghanistan has already signed strategic and long-term partnership agreements with the United States, Britain, Germany, India, Italy and Australia.

The Afghan top diplomat said that his country wants to have close relations with SCO members and all the neighboring nations.

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 11:28 AM

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...0b48c6e0510.01

US will not be price 'gouged' by Pakistan: Panetta

(AFP) – 31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta vowed Sunday not to let the United States be "gouged" by Pakistan on the price it charges for overland deliveries of American military supplies to Afghanistan.

Pakistan closed the land route to US supplies in November as punishment for a botched US air strike that mistakenly killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, but have been in negotiations to reopen the border crossing.

US defense officials have said the Pakistanis are demanding several thousand dollars for every truck crossing its border with the supplies, up from $250 per truck before the closure.

"We're not about to get gouged in the price. We want a fair price," Panetta said on ABC's "This Week."

Without the Pakistani supply lines, the United States has had to rely on a much longer, more expensive northern route to resupply its forces in Afghanistan.

The supply lines impasse is just one of a host of issues that have opened deep schisms in relations between the two countries, supposed allies in the US battle against Islamic extremists.

Relations plunged to an all-time low after a US raid by US special operations forces killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a compound in a Pakistani garrison town on May 2, 2011.

The United States has moved gingerly to make up with the Pakistanis, who were incensed that they learned of the raid only after it had been carried out.

But the issue flared anew last week when a Pakistani court sentenced a doctor who helped the United States gather DNA data used to track down bin Laden to 33 years in prison for helping the Americans.

"It is so difficult to understand and it's so disturbing that they would sentence this doctor to 33 years for helping in the search for the most notorious terrorist in our times," Panetta said.

"What they have done here," he added, "does not help in the effort to try to reestablish a relationship between the United States and Pakistan."

The Senate Appropriations Committee has voted to cut US aid to Pakistan by a symbolic $33 million -- $1 million for each year of jail time given to Shakeel Afridi, the doctor.

The measure, an amendment to the $52 billion US foreign aid budget, passed in a 30-0 vote in a sign of growing frustration with Pakistan.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved.

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 11:31 AM

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://english.samaylive.com/world-n...lochistan.html

27 May 2012 02:31:01 PM IST
Last Updated : 27 May 2012 02:31:01 PM IST

Pakistan political parties ask govt to stop military operation in Balochistan
balochistan

Pakistan's main political parties have asked the government to stop military operations in Balochistan and find a political solution to the numerous problems of the insurgency-hit province.

The call was made at a ‘National Conference on Balochistan Issue & its Solution’, organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association . Political parties like the ruling Pakistan People's Party, main opposition PML-N, Imran Khan's Tehrik-e-Insaf and Jamaat-e-Islami attended the conference and adopted the resolution which called for urgent measures for the resolution of the Balochistan issue

"The politics of the garrison should be replaced by civilian authorities that genuinely represent the will of the people (of Balochistan)," said a resolution adopted at a national conference on the province that was organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association and attended by all leading political parties yesterday.

"In parallel to political negotiations, all military and paramilitary operations are to be stopped forthwith and the army and Frontier Constabulary are to be called back to cantonment," said the resolution.

The leadership of these parties also urged the government to take steps to resolve pressing matters like the issue of "missing persons" or people detained without charge by security and intelligence agencies.

The meeting was addressed by PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif,Imran Khan, PPP leader Raza Rabbani, PML-Q Secretary General
Mushahid Hussain Sayed and Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the former chief of the Jamaat-e-Islami.

Former SCBA President Asma Jahangir said the time had come to decide whether "we want to have Balochistan or not because if we once again manipulate election results, we will lose the province."

Balochistan has been rocked by violence blamed on banned sectarian groups and Baloch nationalist groups in recent
months. Dozens of members of the minority Hazara Shia community have been killed by sectarian groups like the
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi while Baloch national groups demanding greater autonomy have carried out a string of bombings and
attacks.

"The situation in Balochistan is complex and solutions too must be found in multiple directions, including renegotiation of the question of provincial autonomy with economic resources to the province.

"Nevertheless, the participants emphasised that the crisis was one which could only be resolved through political dialogue, negotiations and through building confidence between the people of Balochistan and the federal government," said the resolution adopted at the conference. The political parties demanded the arrest and trial of those responsible for the death of Baloch nationalist leader Akbar Bugti, who was killed during a military operation ordered by former President Pervez Musharraf in 2006.

The resolution said an effective mechanism should be set up to ensure that Balochistan's natural resources "are under
the control of people of the area, while peaceful negotiations continue to meet new challenges."

While commending the Supreme Court for taking up the issue of missing persons, the resolution said "those accused
of heinous crimes of killings and disappearances should be brought to justice."

An inter-Parliamentary committee should prepare a white paper on human rights violations in Balochistan during the Musharraf regime to the present day and this should be discussed in Parliament, it added.The resolution further demanded the release of all "political prisoners and missing persons in custody of different state agencies." It called on religious leaders of different sects to "create the culture of tolerance and religious harmony."

In his address, PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif held dictators responsible for Balochistan's problems, saying their policies had forced people to take up arms.He said the situation worsened after Akbar Bugti's killing.

Sharif admitted that "directly or indirectly I was also part of what happened in Balochistan" but promised not to be "used by the military establishment" in future. Imran Khan asked the government to announce an amnesty for Baloch activists, give provincial autonomy and introduce a local government system in Balochistan.

Senior PPP leader Raza Rabbani said the time had come to admit that "we have made mistakes" in Balochistan.Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Yasin Azad said the situation in Balochistan was not very different from that of the erstwhile East Pakistan in 1971.

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 11:36 AM

Hummm....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...na_114289.html

May 27, 2012
Are We Headed for a Fight with China?
By Steve Chapman

SHANGHAI -- The Soviet Union is gone, al-Qaida is decimated, and Iran may never acquire nuclear weapons. But don't get too relaxed. If you're looking for reasons to be anxious about world peace, China offers an abundance.

It's a huge country with a growing economy, an expanding military and ongoing disputes with several neighbors. Nationalist sentiment has grown. China is a rising power, and history indicates that rising powers often assert themselves in ways that lead to bloodshed.

If you demand immediate evidence, look only to the South China Sea, where the Chinese are locked in an ominous standoff with the Philippines over fishing rights. The Obama administration recently underlined its worries by announcing it would deploy up to 2,500 Marines in Australia. As the longtime dominant nation in the Pacific, the United States has much to lose if China decides to mount a challenge.

Pessimism is a perfectly reasonable response to China's rise. It would not be surprising if it acts to become as dominant in its region as we are in ours. But in pondering the issue on a visit to China, I've found some reasons for hope as well. Tensions and disagreements may be inevitable, but military clashes and all-out war are not.

One encouraging fact is that the Chinese people are not naturally hostile to the United States. Shanghai pollster Victor Yuan told a group of journalists that included me, "Aside from politics, Chinese have a fully positive view of the United States."

American multinational corporations, he says, are regarded as good places to work. Western movies, music and consumer products are popular. Some 130,000 Chinese students are enrolled in the U.S.

It's true that, as Yuan says, the Chinese people rank the U.S. second among China's foes -- with first place going to Japan. But how much of this reflects Chinese belligerence and how much stems from our habit of invading other countries is hard to gauge.

In a candid, free-flowing session with a couple of dozen students at Peking University -- the country's most prestigious -- I asked if there are times when they feel angry toward the United States. Not one hand went up. Nor did any expect that America will help Taiwan break away from the mainland, which would undoubtedly be cause for war.

That consensus seems to be the prevailing view here. Yuan told us that 90 percent of Chinese expect the reunification with Taiwan to be accomplished peacefully.

Taiwan, which is part of China in theory but functionally independent, is the issue that could push the U.S. and China into a shooting war. But it always has been -- and the two sides have been able to keep it from mushrooming out of control. The Economist magazine reports that "relations across the strait have never been better."

Any assessment of the potential danger posed by China ought to incorporate its past behavior. MIT political scientist M. Taylor Fravel points out that since 1949, Beijing has settled 17 of its 23 territorial disputes. In most, it has offered significant compromises, "usually receiving less than 50 percent of the contested land."

"Over the past decade," he testified recently on Capitol Hill, "China has not used its armed forces to actively enforce its claims." Nor has it invented new claims to match its growing wealth and power.

Come to think of it, China hasn't fought a war since 1979. Its record is an encouraging contrast with that of the U.S., which has entered several wars of choice.

The Chinese have found that pushing their agenda can be counterproductive. When China acts assertively, its neighbors tend to seek safety in the arms of Uncle Sam. The Beijing government may have learned something from the experience of Germany -- which has gained a dominant role in Europe by being careful not to revive old fears.

China has followed that model in many respects, signing some 250 multilateral agreements, joining the World Trade Organization and taking part in United Nations peacekeeping operations. It's been generally supportive of international norms that mandate peaceful resolution of differences. It hasn't pursued drastic changes or used drastic measures.

That could change. Past results, we all know, are no guarantee of future performance. But peace has held so far, and it just might keep doing so.
schapman@tribune.com

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 11:40 AM

Hummm.....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://the-diplomat.com/2012/05/26/s...no-powder-keg/

South China Sea Is No Powder Keg
May 26, 2012
By Allen Carlson & Xu Xin
Comments 25

China isn’t looking for conflict in the South China Sea. Indeed, it already seems to be moderating its language over it its spat with the Philippines.

Over the past several weeks, China’s assertive posturing toward the Philippines over the Huangyan Island (Panatag Shoal) section of the South China Sea has generated a great deal of consternation in Asia and beyond. Given the tense situation in the region, it’s quite reasonable to be concerned about how this territorial dispute may lead to a downturn in relations between the two countries.

However, surface appearances notwithstanding, there’s little evidence that Beijing is actively pursuing such an outcome. On the contrary, even in the South China Sea, an area that to many appears particularly ripe for rivalry, there is some cause for optimism.

It’s obvious that Beijing has ratcheted up its campaign to use more blunt measures toward Manila. Yet the intent of such actions isn’t to provoke military conflict, but rather to pressure the Philippines to negotiate with China over the status of the territory in dispute. To be clear, Beijing has shown absolutely no willingness to relinquish it claims in the region. It’s unlikely to ever do so. To think otherwise is both naïve and misinformed.

But at the same time, it has been close to two decades since the last direct, albeit minor, military engagement between China and the Philippines occurred in this maritime area. In addition, during the ensuing period of relative calm, the Chinese signed onto the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, which obligates China (and other signatories) to use only peaceful means to resolve their differences. When such developments are juxtaposed with earlier, more assertive, Chinese behaviors, they suggest that the overall trend in Beijing’s approach toward this region points more in the direction of cooperation than conflict.

While many skeptical observers have dismissed the 2002 agreement as mere empty talk, even its critics must acknowledge that China hasn’t directly violated any of its facets. This doesn’t mean Beijing will never do so, or that all is well in the South China Sea. However, it does suggest that the existing situation in the region contains greater evidence of stability than those most critical of the Chinese tend to acknowledge.

Beijing is only likely to take more provocative actions if the Chinese leadership feels it has been directly provoked. Despite the recent escalation of saber rattling within Asia, it’s difficult to find any indication of such a threat. Absent such a catalyst, China won’t jettison the commitments it has made in the South China Sea in favor of the use of direct military force to lay claim to disputed territories.

More interestingly, hints of a toning down of the more combative elements in Beijing’s approach to the South China Sea can now be found. For example, the Chinese media campaign against the Philippines is no longer as shrill as it was several weeks ago. Beijing has de-emphasized the warnings it was issuing about limited patience and other actors needing to know their place. Instead, a number of high profile commentaries have been published within China that warn war in the South China Sea would be more in the interest of the Philippines than it would China.

More broadly, a pair of additional factors further lessens the likelihood of an escalation of the conflict.

First, some within the Chinese establishment feel that Beijing’s current South China Sea policy is no longer effective and viable. Along these lines, inchoate calls have begun to appear that argue for a national-level effort to coordinate and integrate the disparate pieces of China’s South China Sea policy. Moreover, some well-placed Chinese analysts have even contended that provocative Chinese actions in the South China Sea could cause significant damage to what they perceive to be China’s “period of strategic opportunity” in the region.

Second, and, of greater importance, it’s very unlikely that any big policy initiatives will be unveiled before the 18th Party Congress scheduled to take place this autumn. Periods of leadership transition seldom produce bold shifts in Chinese foreign policy. Moreover, as the cases of Bo Xilai and Chen Guangcheng are still reverberating within China, it’s fair to expect Beijing to be quite risk-adverse in its dealings with the outside world. There is already much uncertainty in the air, and war with one of China’s main neighbors would only exacerbate such a situation, making the leadership more, rather than less, insecure.

In sum, barring incipient regime collapse, and a leadership decision that a major international crisis in the South China Sea would bolster regime legitimacy, it’s hard to imagine a further escalation of tensions between China and the Philippines. Instead, it would appear a high water mark has already been reached in terms of confrontational Chinese positioning in the South China Sea. And, although an enhancement of stability there is unlikely in the near term, the prospects for outright military conflict are equally remote.

Allen Carlson is an Associate Professor in Cornell University’s Government Department. Xu Xin is the Director of Cornell University’s China and Asia Pacific Studies Program.

Related Features

South China Sea Conflict? No Way
Beware the South China Sea
South China Sea Is No Black Sea
Law Not War in the South China Sea
Beijing’s South China Sea Gamble

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 11:42 AM

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://the-diplomat.com/2012/05/26/i...9s-taxi-meter/

Iran and the West’s Taxi Meter
May 26, 2012
By Meir Javedanfar
Comments 4

The West is happy, for now, to let the meter run on negotiations with Tehran. How high a price is Iran’s supreme leader willing to pay?

The just-ended two days of talks between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) at least ended up agreeing on one thing: both sides will meet again in June, in Moscow.

That was one of the few things that they managed to find common ground on – with the two sides failing to reach an agreement about the cessation of Iran’s ongoing enrichment of uranium at 20 percent levels at Fordo as per the West’s wishes, while the P5+1 didn’t agree to the removal of unilateral Western sanctions against Iran’s oil and banking sector as per Iran’s wishes.

Simply put, the two fell well short of the other side’s expectations. Iran insisted on its right to continue with enrichment of uranium as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while the P5+1 had no truck with Iran’s demands over sanctions, instead indicating it was willing to offer Iran assistance with safety at its reactors, and help its airline industry acquire spare parts for its commercial airliners.

The P5+1 must surely be aware that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is far from the only Iranian leader who would consider himself unable to accept such a deal, so why make such an offer in the first place? Why not place the onus on Iran by offering them something viable and attractive, such as the removal of banking and oil sanctions? Had Iran accepted such an offer, it would have been a breakthrough for the P5+1, as the most sensitive and dangerous part of Iran’s enrichment program would have come to a halt. And had Iran rejected such an offer, it would have isolated itself even more, while justifying the P5+1’s dual track of sanctions and diplomacy.

Such an outcome would have been a win-win for the P5+1 – all the West had to do was make the offer. So why is it taking its time? And what does this strategy tell us?

First and foremost, the fact that the P5+1 are in no hurry to make a viable offer to Iran is a clear sign that the Obama administration, as well as other members of the P5+1, don’ believe that Iran is making a bomb – at least not yet. Otherwise, a much better offer than the one made in Baghdad would have been made to stop enrichment at 20 percent now, before it’s too late.

It also suggests that the P5+1 clearly believe that Israel isn’t going to attack Iran’s facilities this year, giving them more time to negotiate with Tehran.

But the behavior of the P5+1 also indicates that they believe that sanctions are working, and that biding their time could therefore serve them better. Over the years, Iran has been accused of stalling at the talks to give it more time to develop its nuclear program. This was evident in 2011, when Iran wasn’t even willing to discuss its nuclear program with the P5+1. That same year, Iran made a great deal of progress in enriching uranium to 20 percent, which allowed Tehran to bypass the red lines that the West set for it with regards to enrichment.

Much like Israel’s current settlement expansion policy, stalling at the talks has given Iran time to create more “facts on the ground.” And, just as every new house built in the West Bank that is given the green light by the Netanyahu government gives Israel a stronger bargaining hand, so every kilogram of uranium produced during Iran’s foot dragging gives Tehran more leverage to secure concessions from the other side. Indeed, according to a recent statement by Hamidreza Taraghi, an adviser to Supreme Leader Khamenei “crossing the West’s red lines” is viewed as something of an achievement by the Iranian regime.

Running the clock on nuclear enrichment has so far served Iran’s interests well. However, it’s not clear whether the Iranians understand that times have changed. These days, the West, through wide reaching unilateral banking and oil sanctions, has installed its own taxi meter next to Iran’s nuclear countdown, one that is clocking up an extremely high “fare” for each minute that goes by without agreement.

Iran could once let the clock tick away without an agreement with very little cost to itself and much to gain. But those days are over. Now that very costly sanctions have been imposed against Iran, it seems that the West wants the clock to keep ticking away. And, as the U.S seems to believe that Khamenei isn’t currently pursuing a bomb, the West seems determined to run the meter so high that Iran will eventually be forced to ask the U.S to stop, and negotiate on its terms.

There’s some logic behind to this strategy. The EU oil sanctions, which will go into effect on July 1, will at the very least be a significant psychological blow to Iran’s economy. Even South Africa, which for many years has been Iran’s staunch defender in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), is now looking to replace Iran with Nigeria as its key oil supplier. This combination of factors, plus falling oil prices, is likely to prompt Iran’s currency to fall again, perhaps soon, placing even more pressure on Iran to compromise.

It’s natural for any side to want to diminish the other’s bargaining position during negotiations, and Iran and the West have been playing this game for many years. Now the P5+1, especially its Western members, seem to have the upper hand.

Clearly, the best outcome for the P5+1 is one in which they convince Khamenei to do what they want, something that seems entirely possible through the current dual track of diplomacy and sanctions.

But Khamenei will need a deal that he can sell to his home audience, especially the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Anything less, such as the current offer by the P5+1, would be political suicide for him, and one thing Khamenei has shown over the years is that he isn’t suicidal. For now at least, the costs of accepting what’s on the table are far higher than what the P+1 meter is showing.

Related Features

A Blueprint for Solving the Iran Crisis
How to Make Iran Change its Mind
Iran Deal Possible, Just Not Now
Time for West to Wise Up on Iran
Election Year = No Iran Deal

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

=

Iranian general: Every base in
the area within our missile range

Published: 05.26.12, 22:56 / Israel News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...234475,00.html

Iranian Brigadier General Hossein Salami, speaking at a memorial service for General Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam, the former chief of Iran's ballistic missile program who was killed in a December explosion, said that "No base in the area is outside Iran's missile capabilities."

Salami further noted that Iran's surface-to-surface missiles are accurate enough "to strike any base you can imagine." (Dudi Cohen)

=

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 12:26 PM

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84Q04R20120527

At least 22 militants killed in Yemeni fighting

ADEN | Sun May 27, 2012 8:12am EDT

(Reuters) - At least 22 Islamist militants were killed in overnight clashes and an air strike in southern Yemen, where government troops are fighting rebels linked to al Qaeda, a local official and residents said on Sunday.

Around 15 of the dead were killed in fighting north of the militant stronghold of Jaar, a town in Abyan province that has been controlled by the militants since last year.

The al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia (Partisans of Islamic Law) exploited last year's popular protests against former president Ali Abdullah Saleh to capture swathes of territory in Abyan, including the provincial capital Zinjibar.

The expansion of the militants' area of control has unsettled the United States and Saudi Arabia, both targets of failed attacks by Yemen's al Qaeda wing (AQAP), which this week claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in the capital Sanaa that killed more than 100 soldiers.

This month the government began a counter-offensive against Ansar al-Sharia with U.S. help.

A military official said the army had managed to recapture key positions in Zinjibar, where at least 63 militants were killed on Saturday in heavy fighting, many of them Somalis.

The bodies of seven militants were seen on Sunday being carried away from a factory located west of Jaar, which is used by Ansar al-Sharia as a base, after it was attacked by a Yemeni warplane on Saturday night.

The United States and Saudi Arabia have been pushing Yemeni President Abd-Rabbu Hadi Mansour, who took over after Saleh stepped down in February, to unite the army and roll back the militants' gains.

Washington considers Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the group's Yemeni wing which has attracted fighters from Somalia and Saudi Arabia, as its most active cell.

American intelligence and counter-terrorism officials say their ability to conduct operations against AQAP inside Yemen, notably with drone strikes, has improved significantly since Hadi took office.

(Reporting by Mohammed Mukhashaf; Writing by Sami Aboudi; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

Related News

Yemen's army says recaptured rebel positions
Sat, May 26 2012
Saudi envoy kidnapped in Yemen begs king for help
Sat, May 26 2012
Yemeni army kills 33 militants in south
Thu, May 24 2012
Yemeni troops advance; donors pledge $4 bln aid
Wed, May 23 2012
Donors pledge $4 billion aid to Qaeda-hit Yemen
Wed, May 23 2012

Analysis & Opinion

America and Syriaâ€™s ‘dead man walking’
Thousands of radical Salafis urge bigger role for Islam in Tunisia

Related Topics

World »
Yemen »

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 12:27 PM

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...b48c6e0510.161

Panetta says no need for US boots in Yemen

(AFP) – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON — The United States can deal with Al-Qaeda's spreading presence in Yemen without US forces on the ground, relying instead on targeted operations, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Sunday.

Panetta, in an interview with ABC television's "This Week," defended the use of drones as "the most precise weapon we have" in the campaign against Al-Qaeda.

"Our whole effort there is aimed at going after those terrorists who threaten to attack our country," he said.

"We've been successful. We've gone after a number of key targets there. We'll continue to do that."

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, which US intelligence considers a top threat to the US homeland, has expanded its presence in Yemen amid unrest and political turmoil there.

The Yemen-based Al-Qaeda affiliate has twice tried to bring down US airliners, including the failed underwear bombing of a Detroit-bound jet on December 25, 2009.

Panetta was asked whether Al-Qaeda could be stopped without US boots on the ground.

"The answer is yes, because very frankly, what we're targeting, the operations we're conducting, require the kind of capabilities that don't necessarily involve boots on the ground, but require the kind of capabilities that target those that we're after who are threats to the United States."

The United States has military advisers assisting Yemeni forces and has carried out regular drone strikes against Al-Qaeda suspects there, mainly in the south and southeast.

Yemen's army launched a major offensive on May 12 to capture Al-Qaeda-controlled areas in the southern province of Abyan.

A suicide bomber blew himself up last week in the middle of an army parade rehearsal in the capital Sanaa, killing 96 soldiers and wounding at least 300 others.

Al-Qaeda said it was behind the attack, the deadliest against Yemeni troops since newly-elected President Abdrabuh Mansur Hadi vowed to destroy the militant network at his swearing in ceremony last February.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Related articles

British resident sentenced in absentia by Bahrain court for 'trying to ...
The Independent - 1 hour ago
Bahrain court sentences terror cell members to 15 years
gulfnews.com - 6 hours ago
Bahrain court sentences 8 in coup plot trial
Newsday - 7 hours ago

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 12:30 PM

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9971344-a...#axzz1w5ms0BmR

May 27, 2012 4:34 pm
Security crisis threatens Yemeni transition

By Michael Peel in Abu Dhabi and Geoff Dyer in Washington

Yemen’s deepening security crisis threatens to derail the Arab Spring’s only internationally brokered regime change, which has been promoted by President Barack Obama as a possible model for Syria.

Western and Gulf countries face an uncomfortable squeeze as they try to promote political reform while simultaneously backing President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi’s bloody fight against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula [AQAP] and other Islamist groups, in a conflict that has killed hundreds.

Analysts say international powers’ ever-closer relationship with Mr Hadi risks handing a propaganda coup to militants who argue they are fighting a just war against both the president’s forces and the US, which has stepped up drone strikes in the country’s chaotic south.

Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert at Princeton University, said: “The big question is which narrative wins out – will it be the new Yemeni government which says that it is restoring authority and stability in the country, or will it be AQAP which frames its actions as revenge for US and government attacks and is providing services in areas long neglected?”

The months-long battle between Yemen government forces and militants, who have grabbed territory and over-run army bases in the south, reached the capital, Sana’a, last week in a suicide bombing that killed more than 90 soldiers. Two days later, world powers pledged more than $4bn in aid to Yemen – $3.25bn of it from Saudi Arabia – even as Mr Hadi’s forces fought militants in the southern cities of Zinjibar and Jaar, in clashes reported to have killed 33 Islamists and nine soldiers.

Western and Gulf countries are desperate for Yemen to follow through on the political transition they brokered for Ali Abdullah Saleh, president of 33 years, to step down in February – a deal Mr Obama told G8 leaders this month could be a template for regime change in Syria. Under the plan, Mr Hadi won a presidential poll in which he was the only candidate, with promises of a new constitution and free elections to follow.

But the west’s position on Yemen’s transition has been complicated by the increasing power of the Islamic militants, who benefited from political turmoil and splits in the army as Mr Saleh clung to office for almost a year in the face of an uprising against him.

US drones have hit hard at an enemy that Washington claims is behind a series of plots to bomb western airliners. Sarah Phillips, a Yemen expert at Australia’s University of Sydney, says these air strikes have “hit a nerve” among the local population. “A lot of people are incredibly unhappy about it – and al-Qaeda is taking full advantage,” she said.

In a sign of Washington’s acknowledgment of the growing importance of the propaganda war, the state department last week tried to counter anti-American material on Yemeni tribal websites with advertisements purporting to show how al-Qaeda operations have killed Yemenis.

Other western officials acknowledge the need to tackle the link between Yemen’s huge unmet needs – it is the Arab world’s poorest country – and popular support for the militants. The Islamists say they are providing food and other services in a country where aid agencies warn that as many as 10m people – or almost half the population – are going hungry.

“Good economic development is the best weapon against al-Qaeda,” said Alan Duncan, British international development minister. “And a vacuum of power and services helps al-Qaeda.”

Another difficulty facing the US and allied international powers is they are being drawn increasingly tightly towards a transitional leader who suffers from the ambiguity of having been Mr Saleh’s vice-president for more than 15 years. While Mr Hadi has made some efforts to remove his predecessor’s relatives and associates from top government and security positions, the former president is still influential and scepticism remains about how committed Mr Hadi is to a full clear-out.

An executive order signed by US president Barack Obama this month threatened sanctions on any Yemeni government member deemed to be jeopardising the country’s “strength and stability” – a move that highlighted how the country’s politics are still based on individual powerplays rather than the institutional governance western countries say is needed for real change to take root.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012.

More
On this story

Saudi Arabia pledges $3.25bn aid to Yemen
Suicide bomber kills more than 90 in Yemen
US warns on fresh threat from al-Qaeda in Yemen
Overview Struggle to make the most of a new order

On this topic

Children among 200 killed in a week in Yemen
Yemen’s main airport reopens after stand-off
Purged officers close airport
Yemen’s ruler ousts former regime loyalists

IN Middle East & North Africa

Houla massacre leaves UN plan in tatters
Tehran defiant on nuclear programme
Shafiq seen to embody Mubarak regime
Iran boosts stocks of high grade uranium

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 01:41 PM

Either this will be more of the same or things could start to really ramp up....

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...49ff3c2d086a97

Syria denies responsibility for attack killing 90

By ALBERT AJI, Associated Press – 36 minutes ago

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — The Syrian government on Sunday denied responsibility for killings in a string of villages that left more than 90 people dead, blaming the killings on "hundreds of heavily armed gunmen" who also attacked soldiers in the area.

Friday's assault on the central area of Houla was one of the bloodiest single events in Syria's 15-month-old uprising, and gruesome images of dozens of children killed in the attacks prompted a wave of international outrage.

The U.N. said 32 children under the age of 10 were among the dead and issued a statement appearing to hold the Syrian regime responsible. Persistent violence has cast doubt about the future of international efforts to halt 14 months of bloodshed between the regime and forces fighting against it.

The U.N. Security Council scheduled an emergency session for late Sunday to discuss the killing. Diplomats said Russia blocked a strong statement condemning the killing, insisting on a briefing from the head of the observer mission first.

Activists from Houla said Saturday that regime forces had peppered the area with mortar shells after large demonstrations against the regime on Friday. That evening, they said, pro-regime fighters known as shabiha stormed the villages, gunning down men in the streets and stabbing women and children in their homes.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi disputed those accounts, saying Syria is being subjected to a "tsunami of lies."

"We categorically deny the responsibility of government forces for the massacre," Makdissi said Sunday during a news conference in Damascus.

Giving the regime's version of events, Makdissi said "hundreds of heavily armed gunmen carrying machine guns, mortars and anti-tank missiles" launched a simultaneous attack against five army positions from several locations, starting about 2 p.m. and continuing for nine hours. Three soldiers were killed and 16 were wounded, he said.

"There were no Syrian tanks or artillery in the vicinity" of Houla, Makdissi said. He said that gunmen used anti-tank missiles and "Syrian troops retaliated in defense of their positions."

"Children, women and other innocent people were killed in their homes, and this is not what the Syrian army does," Makdissi said. "The method of killing was brutal."

Makdissi said a committee was set up to investigate the attack, and results should be out within three days. He added that Kofi Annan, the joint U.N.-Arab League envoy, will fly to Syria on Monday.

But a senior Arab League official said Syria has denied permission for Annan's deputy to travel to Damascus. Syria insisted the decision against former Palestinian Foreign Minister Nasser al-Kidwa was not personal, but rather because it did not want to deal with the Arab League, the official said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

The Houla attacks sparked outrage from American and other international leaders, and renewed concerns about the relevance of a 6-week-old international peace plan that has not stopped almost daily violence. The U.N. put the death toll weeks ago at more than 9,000. Hundreds have been killed since.

U.N. observers, among more than 250 who were dispatched in recent weeks to try to salvage the cease-fire plan, found spent artillery and tank shells at the site Saturday — a finding that points toward the government's heavily armed mechanized units.

On Sunday, Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague said he would summon Syria's most senior diplomat in the U.K. on Monday so the Foreign Office's political director could "make clear our condemnation of the Syrian regime's actions."

Syria says the Arab League has become a tool of the West. The group suspended Syria's membership and approved sanctions against it late last year.

Kuwait, which currently heads the 22-member Cairo-based Arab League, announced it is calling for an Arab ministerial meeting that aims to "take steps to put an end to the oppressive practices against the Syrian people."

Late Saturday, Foreign Minister Sheik Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates condemned the killings in Houla and called for an urgent meeting of the Arab League.

Activists said government troops shelled residential areas in other areas of central Syria on Sunday.

The shelling hit neighborhoods in the central city of Hama and the rebel-held town of Rastan north of Homs, the Local Coordination Committees and the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

The two groups also reported clashes between troops and rebels in Hama, in the Damascus suburb of Harasta and in the capital's central Midan district. They said a bomb struck a security vehicle in the capital's upscale district of Mazzeh, near a military airport, according to the LCC.

The Observatory said the vehicle bombing caused casualties but did not have further details.

Damascus is tightly controlled by regime forces but has been hit by a wave of bomb blasts over recent months that killed scores of people. Most of the blasts have targeted Syrian security agencies.

Mroue reported from Beirut. Associated Press writers Adam Schreck in Dubai and Hamza Hendawi in Cairo contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Related articles

UN in emergency summit on Syria
Belfast Telegraph - 37 minutes ago
Syria Denies Responsibility in Brutal Attack
New York Times - 6 hours ago
Syria denies it was behind attack that killed 90
Straits Times - 7 hours ago

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 01:42 PM

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/wo...e-uranium.html

Iran Won’t Halt Production of Higher Grade Uranium
By THOMAS ERDBRINK
Published: May 27, 2012

TEHRAN — Iran will not halt its 20 percent enrichment of uranium, the country’s nuclear chief said Sunday on state television, backing away from an earlier offer that suggested Tehran might be prepared to cease production of the higher-grade nuclear material.

The official, Fereydoon Abbasi, also announced that Iran would start building two nuclear power plants in 2013, and he said that its only active nuclear reactor was near full production after a delay of many years.

He made clear that there would be no suspension of enrichment by Iran, a crucial demand of a handful of United Nations Security Council resolutions. “We have no reason to retreat from producing the 20 percent because we need 20 percent uranium just as much to meet our needs,” Mr. Abbasi said, according to Iranian state television.

Mr. Abbasi’s remarks are bound to complicate the already difficult nuclear talks between Iran and the world powers, which after an unsuccessful meeting on Wednesday and Thursday in Baghdad will be continued in Moscow on June 18. If the talks fail, the powers are planning to tighten sanctions on Iranian exports and financial dealings as early as July 1, including placing an embargo on all sales of Iranian oil to Europe.

Iran’s enrichment of uranium is at the center of those discussions, with Western countries suspecting the country of stockpiling enriched uranium that could rapidly be converted into weapons-grade material. Iran says it only wants to produce civilian nuclear energy.

Before the meeting in Baghdad, Mr. Abbasi had hinted that Iran was ready to compromise on its program of enriching uranium up to 20 percent with the isotope capable of sustaining nuclear fission, which it says it needs to fuel an aging United States-designed medical reactor. Iranian negotiators were under the impression that the Obama administration and its allies, in return, were willing to allow Iran to continue to enrich up to a lower percentage. But during the Baghdad meeting it became clear that such an offer was not on the table for now.

Instead, the world powers offered another proposal, which called for Iran to export its stockpile of the more highly enriched uranium and suspend any further production. In exchange, the country was to receive supplies of medical isotopes.

That plan was turned down by Iran’s negotiators, who made a counterproposal that would have allowed Tehran to continue to enrich uranium. It also called for nuclear disarmament and, among other things, cooperation in the fight against Somali pirates in the Horn of Africa.

Both sides are expecting the other to take the first significant steps, without wanting to compromise on critical issues, said a European diplomat familiar with the talks.

Iranian officials have been unclear on how much of the higher enriched uranium they want to produce. A Friday report by the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran had produced 145 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 20 percent, more than it ordered from Argentina in 1988, the last time it needed a stockpile for its medical reactor. In April, Mr. Abbasi said that Iran planned to build five more medical reactors, and that it needed to create a stockpile of fuel for that purpose.

Western powers fear that Iran, if needed, could quickly enrich the uranium to weapons-grade levels of 95 percent. But there are experts who doubt that the country is currently capable of doing so.

The energy agency’s report also said that in one instance uranium enriched up to 27 percent was found. Mr. Abbasi said it was a technical or operational mistake. Western experts on Friday agreed that such an explanation was plausible.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who has been largely sidelined in the nuclear talks by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, urged the country’s Parliament on Sunday to stand with him against the “evil ones” who he said had encircled the nation.

On Saturday, Mr. Abbasi, who survived an assassination attempt in 2010, also highlighted complications in the talks with the energy agency, which took place in Tehran two days before the meeting with the world powers.

After the talks wrapped up, the energy agency’s secretary general, Yukiya Amano, who had flown to Tehran for the first time since his appointment in 2009, said that he was near an agreement with the Iranians on extra inspections, including at Parchin, a military base near the capital where the agency suspects military nuclear activities are under way.

Iran’s nuclear chief made clear that such an agreement would only be signed if the agency presented evidence that proved Tehran was pursuing illegal nuclear activities on the site.

“The reasons and documents have still not been presented by the agency to convince us to give permission for this visit,” Mr. Abbasi was quoted as saying by the Fars news agency on Saturday.

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 01:43 PM

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...d5e943b3e690bb

NATO disputes report of casualties in airstrike

By RAHIM FAIEZ, Associated Press – 11 minutes ago

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The U.S.-led coalition on Sunday disputed reports that eight civilians, including children, were killed in a NATO airstrike in a remote part of eastern Afghanistan.

Afghan officials said an airstrike Saturday night killed eight members of a family, but a senior NATO official said that so far, there is no evidence of any civilian casualties. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the information.

Separately, NATO reported that three coalition service members were killed Sunday in eastern Afghanistan — two during an insurgent attack and one from a roadside bombing.

Four others, including a British soldier, were killed in the south on Saturday, bringing to 169 the number of NATO deaths in Afghanistan so far this year. The British Ministry of Defense said the soldier was killed in an explosion in the Nahr-e Saraj region of southern Helmand province. The nationalities of the other three have not been disclosed.

The coalition said it was working to find out more about allegations that civilians were killed in the NATO operation that foreign forces were conducting Saturday night in Paktia province.

The killing of civilians by foreign forces has been a major irritant in Afghan President Hamid Karzai's relationship with his international partners. He warned earlier this month that civilian casualties could undermine a strategic partnership with the U.S. that is to govern long-term relations after most international troops withdraw by the end of 2014.

Karzai appointed a delegation to travel to Paktia province and determine what happened.

Frequently, Afghan and coalition officials offer differing accounts of military operations.

In those cases, local residents claim civilians were killed, while the coalition says the victims had been identified as insurgents. Later, if investigations prove that civilians were inadvertently killed, the coalition acknowledges its mistake.

Rohullah Samon, a spokesman for the provincial governor, said Mohammad Shafi, his wife and their six children were killed in the airstrike around 8 p.m. in Suri Khail village of Gurda Saria district.

"Shafi was not a Taliban. He was not in any opposition group against the government. He was a villager," Samon said. "Right now, we are working on this case to find out the ages of their children."

Such attacks damage the civilian population's trust in international troops who have been fighting in the country for more than a decade.

Taliban attacks have killed more civilians than foreign forces, but public anger over the issue is usually directed at the international forces.

Tensions spiked after Afghan officials reported that 18 civilians were killed in four recent airstrikes in Logar, Kapisa, Badghis and Helmand provinces. That led Karzai to issue his warning earlier this month.

"If the lives of Afghan people are not safe, the signing of the strategic partnership has no meaning," Karzai's office said.

Last year was the deadliest on record for civilians in the Afghan war, with 3,021 killed as insurgents ratcheted up violence with suicide attacks and roadside bombs, the United Nations said in its latest report on civilian deaths.

The U.N. attributed 77 percent of the deaths to insurgent attacks and 14 percent to actions by international and Afghan troops. Nine percent of cases were classified as having an unknown cause. The U.N. attributed 187 civilian deaths last year to aerial attacks, an increase of 9 percent over 2010.

Elsewhere Sunday, two civilians were killed when their vehicle struck a roadside bomb in Marjah district of Helmand province in the south, provincial spokesman Daud Ahmadi said.

Associated Press writer Mirwais Khan in Kandahar contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Related articles

NATO strike kills eight
Sydney Morning Herald - 4 hours ago
Afghan Women Fleeing, Syrian Children Dying: News From the Wonderful World of ...
The Atlantic - 9 hours ago
British Soldier Killed In Helmand Blast
Sky News - 22 hours ago

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 01:51 PM

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.voanews.com/content/mali-...e/1105876.html

Mali Rebels Merge, Plan to Create Islamic State
Anne Look
May 27, 2012

BAMAKO - Tuareg rebels and Islamist militants have joined forces and say they will turn northern Mali into an independent Islamist state. The groups took advantage of a military coup in Bamako to seize control of nearly two-thirds of Mali's territory in early April.

The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, known as the MNLA, and the al-Qaida linked Islamist sect Ansar Dine have merged their troops, and their goals. They say they will now work together to create an independent Islamic state in what is currently northern Mali.

The groups signed the agreement late Saturday in the occupied town of Gao, where Isa Idrissa Maiga runs a local radio station.

Maiga says the fighters kept everyone awake, celebrating and firing live rounds into the air for two hours. He says the town was calm Sunday and residents are just watching and waiting. He says these two groups had opposing visions and some in the town suspect the accord is an attempt to solidify control of the territory.

Saturday's announcement was an about-face for both groups. They staged a tandem offensive in the chaotic days following a March 22nd military coup in the south, but to very different professed aims.

The MNLA declared the territory the independent, secular state of Azawad on April 5. The group pledged to fight the traffickers and terrorists who have overrun the region in recent years, namely al-Qaida of the Islamic Maghreb, known as AQIM.

Ansar Dine, which is allied with AQIM, rejected calls for independence and instead said it wants to impose sharia law in the region.

Ansar Dine has begun introducing its brand of Islamic law in the northern towns of Gao and Timbuktu, but has met with resistance from residents accustomed to a more moderate Islam. In mid-May, AQIM's Algerian leader, known as Abdelmalek Droukdel, posted a video online in which he advised Ansar Dine to take a gradual approach and not expect acceptance of Islamic law "overnight."

Droukdel also reportedly advised Ansar Dine to cooperate with the the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad. There is some common ground there, as Ansar Dine is an offshoot of previous Tuareg rebellions in northern Mali.

Some in Mali had hoped that an eventual power struggle between the two occupying forces would loosen their grip on the territory. Saturday's alliance would appear to close the door on that prospect.

West African regional bloc ECOWAS has offered to deploy regional peacekeepers to Mali. The nation's military, already unable to halt the rebellion in the north earlier this year, is in shambles following the coup.

The future of the interim government in Bamako remains uncertain. Interim President Diouncounda Traore is in Paris receiving medical treatment after being beaten by protesters in his office a week ago.

The interim government, and the international community, have rejected the notion of independence for northern Mali.

Amadou Maiga contributed reporting from Gao, Mali.

Related Articles

US Condemns Mali Violence
Mali Coalitions Compete for Government Control
Arab Spring Resonates with Sub-Saharan Africans

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 02:22 PM

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...60_111799.html

05-27-2012 15:42
Russia rattles its dusty nuclear sabers

By Dale McFeatters

As he prepared to reassume the post of Russian prime minister in an orchestrated transfer of power, outgoing President Dmitry Medvedev told a Kremlin audience that the nation needed to keep its nuclear arsenal.

"They may still come in handy. We're not going to use them, but let's still keep them around because we have a big country ... We must value it and protect it," he said.

That is pretty much the U.S. position, too, but the U.S., unlike Russia, faces actual threats from North Korea, which has nuclear weapons, and Iran, which does not, and terrorist groups that would love to get their hands on them.

But, as the Financial Times noted, "In speech after speech this month, Russian officials have tried to out-Dr. Strangelove each other in warning of a potential nuclear conflagration."

Russia seems to be the only major country that believes any of this, and the latest round of bluster may be due to a number of causes. Russia senses that its superpower status is slipping, and the nuclear arsenal remains a claim on that status. The population has failed to rally around President Vladimir Putin after his awkwardly fixed election, and this may be a way to fire up its sense of nationalism. Or, speculates the Times, it may be the Kremlin's customary "recreational paranoia" when it comes to the U.S.

The specific incident that sent the Russian leadership reeling back to the days of the Cold War was the decision at the NATO summit in Chicago this past week to go ahead with a missile-defense system based mostly in Eastern Europe, specifically in countries that used to be part of the old Soviet Union.

The Russians don't buy the argument that the system would be aimed against Iran. They believe it will be ultimately aimed at them, although right now the U.S. contractors that stand to benefit from missile-defense contracts, the Republican right for whom the system is a matter of dogma and the Russians seem to be the only ones who believe it will work, let alone be effective.

Analysts point out that if ― if ― the U.S. wanted a defense system against Russian missiles ― of which there are too many to guard against ― it would likely be a mobile sea-based system, possibly aboard Aegis cruisers, and not in fixed installations within easy reach of the Russian border.

For reasons of political expedience, Cold War logic is being revived in Putin's Russia. Dr. Strangelove, indeed.

The writer is an editorial writer for Scripps Howard News Service.

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 02:26 PM

Hummm......

For links see article source....
Posted for fair use....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=31068

Laying the Foundations for Preemptive Nuclear War Against Iran
by Nile Bowie
Global Research, May 27, 2012
nilebowie.blogspot.ca

As prospects for a preemptive strike on Iran remain ever present, the recent round of talks between the P5+1 and Iran in Baghdad on May 23rd, 2012 have resulted in a familiar stalemate. As a precondition for any deal to stop higher-grade uranium enrichment, Tehran requested immediate relief from economic sanctions as a show of reciprocity [1].

Iranian chief negotiator Saeed Jalili emphasized Tehran’s right to develop peaceful nuclear energy as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while the P5+1 refused to scale back economic sanctions, insisting Iran suspend its 20% uranium enrichment program [2].

As leaders in Tel Aviv assert that Israel may conduct military strikes against Iran before the US Presidential elections in November [2], Major General Hassan Firouzabadi of the Iranian Armed Forces reiterated Iran’s commitment to the full annihilation of the Zionist regime and the continual support of Palestinian autonomy [3]. Even if Tehran reaches an agreement with the IAEA, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak refused to rule out a military strike against Iranian facilities, demanding that Iran dismantle its uranium enrichment sites and use only imported fuel [4].

Although the recent conference in Baghdad failed to meet the expectations of its participants, Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have agreed to hold another round of talks in Moscow on June 18th [5]. As a further indication of division between P5+1 participants, Germany has pledged to work toward a political and diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear energy issues by providing Tehran with technical assistance in developing a peaceful nuclear program [6], while the US Senate recently approved a new round of sanctions against Iran aimed at any country or company that provides technology or resources to develop Tehran’s oil and uranium resources [7]. The new legislation targets Iran’s national oil and tanker firms and widens sanctions on Iran’s energy sector to any international joint venture where Tehran is a substantial partner or investor. As the US continually pressures Beijing to join its oil embargo, the Chinese Foreign Ministry remains vocally opposed to the new package of economic sanctions against Iran [8].

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich blasted the US for imposing new unilateral sanctions against Iran, describing the move as an irrational measure intended to the harm pace of negotiations [9]. India has remained adamant against expanding sanctions on Iran [10], as New Delhi and Tehran agree to increase annual bilateral trade two thirds to $25 billion by 2015, confirming their intent to bypass US sanctions by making payments for a significant portion of its oil purchases from Iran in rupees [11]. As further cooperation between the US and the Persian Gulf monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) remains evident through their unanimous support of Syria’s armed opposition, Saudi Arabia remains a major beneficiary under the continued imposition of sanctions on Tehran from Washington. Japan and South Korea once accounted for 26% of Iran's oil exports [12], now both Seoul [13] and Tokyo [14] have sought stable supplies of crude oil from Saudi Arabia. As South Africa turns to Saudi Arabia after halting business with Iran [15], the kingdom’s crude output is at a thirty-year high [16], as shipments to the United States quietly rise to 25% [17].

As a result of sanctions on Iran, Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund predicts that oil prices could spike as much as 30% and hover around $160 per barrel if Iran's crude oil exports fell sharply [18]. As Iranian production hits a ten-year low as of March 2012, industry-wide fears of a recession-fueled fall in demand have prompted the reduction of total world oil production through the imposition of embargoes on Iranian oil; higher prices triggered by a supply squeeze from the sanctions work to further benefit international oil companies and producers like Saudi Arabia [19]. In March 2012, the US granted Japan and 10 EU nations a six-month reprieve to gradually cut their imports of Iranian oil, lest they be subjected to their own financial sanctions and cut off from the US financial system [20]. Under the 2012 US National Defense Authorization Act, Barack Obama can impose financial sanctions on foreign banks that carry out financial transactions with Iran's central bank "for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran" [21].

Given the fragile state of the European economy, the further implementation of financial sanctions on nations who fail to comply with the oil embargo on Iran is thoroughly unreasonable, with entirely negative implications for the European Union. Any further escalation of tensions with Iran would likely trigger inflated oil prices, which could further cripple the unstable economies of Greece and Portugal and potentially lead to those nations leaving the European Union. Despite Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qassemi downplaying the negative effects of sanctions [22], inflation is soaring within Iran as the cost of food increases between 25% to 125%, with 60% of the population relying on cash subsidies handed out by Tehran [23]. Iran’s budget deficit for the 2011/2012 fiscal year is expected to be between $30 to $50 billion, as the Iranian rial continues to plunge after the imposition of the oil embargo, causing widespread panic buying of gold among the Iranian public [24].

As commodity prices in Iran continue to skyrocket, former Mossad director Efraim Halevy remarked, “The rial is going down, it's gone down by over 50 percent. It's almost impossible to describe the damage done," while former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami forewarns, "When a national currency loses 50% of its value in a matter of weeks, economic collapse is at hand.” [25][26]. As Iran struggled to replace it’s client base following the imposition of US-led economic sanctions, Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz spoke before the Israeli cabinet predicting the collapse of the Iranian economy [27]. Haaretz reports the remarks of an unnamed senior official in the Israeli Foreign Ministry, "These aren't sanctions against Iran. Instead, they are sanctions imposed by the West to curb Israel's attack plans, had Israel not spoken out about its intention to attack, none of this would be happening. The Iranians are frightened. You have to understand what's going on there in stores; citizens grab food off the shelves because they are worried about an impending attack. Inflation is soaring and the currency has lost half its value. All this attests to fear." [28]

As the black market in Iran expands amid an increasing lack of public confidence in the rial, the role of the state is indirectly strengthened because smuggling imports requires strong connections within the regime, leaving the poor and lower middle class susceptible to poverty while the officials being targeted by sanctions themselves benefit from the embargo [29]. The fact that Obama administration chose to preemptively impose sanctions on Iran before the P5+1 meeting in Baghdad even took place indicates that the objective of US-Israeli policy toward Iran seeks not mutual agreement and reconciliation, but the further perpetuation of conflict to ensure that the question of Iran’s nuclear energy issue remains unsolved. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the scope for sanctions over Iran's nuclear program had been exhausted and any additional measures were intended to provoke discontent in the Iranian population [30].

As the United States and its allies offer unflinching support to armed opposition groups under cover of “democratic activism” in non-acquiescent countries in the region, any popular revolution in Iran would unquestionably be supported and used to pressure the government from within, even using the opportunity to launch an armed opposition insurrection. An articled published in The New Yorker by Seymour M. Hersh entitled, “Our Men in Iran?,” documents how members of Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian dissident group and US State Department-listed terrorist organization, were trained in communications, cryptography, small-unit tactics and weaponry by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) at a base in Nevada starting in 2005 [31]. JSOC instructed MEK operatives on how to penetrate major Iranian communications systems, allowing the group to intercept telephone calls and text messages inside Iran for the purpose of sharing them with American intelligence. The group has been implicated in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists [32] and the planting of the Stuxnet malware that sabotaged Iran’s nuclear facility in Natanz [33].

MEK was founded in 1965 as a Marxist Islamic mass political movement aimed at agitating the monarchy of the US-backed Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The group initially sided with revolutionary clerics led by Ayatollah Khomeini following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but eventually turned away from the regime during a power struggle that resulted in the group waging urban guerilla warfare against Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in 1981. The organization was later given refuge by Saddam Hussein and mounted attacks on Iran from within Iraqi territory, killing an estimated 17,000 Iranian nationals in the process [34]. MEK exists as the main component of the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a “coalition of democratic Iranian organizations, groups and personalities,” calling itself a "parliament-in-exile” seeking to “establish a democratic, secular and coalition government” in Iran [35]. Following the toppling of Saddam Hussein, UN special representative in Iraq Martin Kobler organized efforts to relocate MEK insurgents to a former US military base near the Baghdad airport, with the full support of the US Embassy in Iraq and the State Department to avoid violent clashes between the MEK and the Shiite-led Iraqi government [36].

MEK has long received material assistance from Israel, who assisted the organization with broadcasting into Iran from their political base in Paris, while the MEK and NCRI have reportedly provided the United States with intelligence on Iran's nuclear program. Despite the documented cases of atrocities committed by MEK forces, elder statesmen such as former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley K. Clark, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former 9/11 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton were paid $20,000 to $30,000 per engagement to endorse the removal of the Mujahideen-e Khalq from the US State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations [37]. NBC News reports that Israel provided financing, training and arms to Mujahideen-e Khalq, who are responsible for killing five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 using motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars [38]. A recent investigation by the US Treasury Department has indicated that Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization is financially sponsored by the Israeli regime and Saudi Arabia [39].

Upon launching a war against Iran, aggressor nations would likely utilize MEK forces as opposition insurgents and could even recognize the touted “parliament-in-exile”, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, as Iran’s legitimate representative, much like how the Friends of Syria group has recognized the opposition Syrian National Council [40]. From her political base in Paris, exiled NCRI leader Maryam Rajavi is a strong candidate for Western support in contrast to internal opposition figures such as Mir-Hossein Mousavi, former Iranian Prime Minister turned political reformist and figurehead of the Green Movement demonstrations in 2009 following the victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in elections widely perceived as a fraudulent [41]. Although Mousavi has advocated greater personal freedoms in Iran and the disbanding of religious police enforcers, he is a strong advocate of Iran’s nuclear energy program and would likely never yield the kind of acquiescence to Western policy that exiled figures such as Maryam Rajavi would uphold in exchange for political support and material assistance [42]. It is widely believed that Mousavi is currently held under house arrest without an arrest warrant, charge or trial [43].

While figures such as Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi publically renounce nuclear weapons [44], Iranian scientists claim to be enriching uranium to 20% to develop radiopharmaceuticals and industrial isotopes under the supervision of the IAEA inspectors [45]. On October 1, 2010, the IAEA proposed a deal according to which Iran would send 3.5% enriched uranium abroad and receive 20% enriched uranium from potential suppliers in return, namely France and the United States, who Tehran accused of stalling negotiations from the start [46]. Tehran was offered a deal at a time when its supplies of 20% enriched uranium were nearly depleted, however Iranian lawmakers rejected the deal after technical studies showed that it would only take two to three months for any country to further enrich the nuclear stockpile and turn it into metal nuclear plates for the Tehran Research Reactor, while suppliers had announced that they would not return fuel to Iran in any time less than seven months [47].

Iran has made efforts to ensure the transparency of its nuclear program by allowing IAEA probes to inspect Iranian sites such as the Parchin military complex where the agency has reported suspicious activities in the past [48]. The IAEA’s recent discovery of traces of uranium enriched up to 27% at Iran's Fordo enrichment plant sparked controversy, although the enrichment figure is still substantially below the 90% level needed to make the fissile core required in nuclear arms; officials conceded that the likely explanation for the increased level of enrichment was attributed to centrifuges initially over-enriching at the start as technicians adjusted their output [49]. It should be noted that former chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Hans Blix has challenged the IAEA’s own reports on Iran’s nuclear activities, accusing the agency of relying on unverified intelligence from the US and Israel [50]; the IAEA’s most recent report cited Tehran's progress toward enrichment technology with complete cooperation with the agency and confirms the non-weaponized status of Iranian nuclear activities [51].

Clinton Bastin, former director of US nuclear weapons production programs, has sent an open letter to President Obama regarding the status of Iran’s capacity to produce nuclear weapons [52]. Bastin reiterates, “The ultimate product of Iran's gas centrifuge facilities would be highly enriched uranium hexafluoride, a gas that cannot be used to make a weapon. Converting the gas to metal, fabricating components and assembling them with high explosives using dangerous and difficult technology that has never been used in Iran would take many years after a diversion of three tons of low enriched uranium gas from fully safeguarded inventories. The resulting weapon, if intended for delivery by missile, would have a yield equivalent to that of a kiloton of conventional high explosives” [53]. The US-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) has recently released claims that Iran’s total production of enriched uranium over the past five years would be enough for at least five nuclear weapons stating, "This total amount of 3.5 percent low enriched uranium hexafluoride, if further enriched to weapon grade, is enough to make over five nuclear weapons." [54]

Bastin’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear program further emphasizes the impracticality of weaponizing the hexafluoride product of Tehran’s gas-centrifuges, as the resulting deterrent would yield the equivalent explosive capacity equal to a kiloton of conventional explosives, producing a highly inefficient nuclear weapon. If Iran chose to produce nuclear weapons in this way, it would take several years to reach the 90% enrichment levels needed for a nuclear deterrent; Iran has complied with the IAEA and the United Nations on this issue and there is no substantial evidence indicating that Tehran has any intention of enriching uranium to 90% for the purpose of creating nuclear weapons. On March 23rd, 2012, Reuters released a special report entitled, “Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent”, concluding that the United States, its European allies and even Israel agree that Tehran does not have a bomb, it has not decided to build one, and it is years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead [55]. As the West continually implements an unyielding regime of sanctions against Iran when they themselves acknowledge the civilian nature of the Iranian nuclear program, the overwhelming motive behind their actions to pressure Iran into full-scale war on an unprecedented scale is self-evident.

The United States has produced more than 70,000 nuclear weapons between 1951 and 1998 [56], while Israel possess a nuclear weapons stockpile ranging from 75 to 400 warheads [57]. While the hazardous ramifications of Iran’s nuclear development pervade public consciousness, the fact that US legal doctrine has worked to further blur the line between conventional and nuclear warfare remains rarely acknowledged. The March 2005 Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations released by the Joint Chiefs of Staff envisages “contingency plans” for an offensive first strike use of nuclear weapons against both Iran and North Korea, providing the legal mandate to carry out pre-emptive nuclear war, both in terms of military planning as well as defense procurement and production [58] The 2002 adoption of the Pentagon’s 2001 Nuclear Posture Review by the US Congress marked the cease of prohibition on low yield nuclear weapons and provided funding allocations to pursue the development of tactical nuclear weapons, such as bunker buster (earth penetrator) mini-nukes [59].

The revised Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (March 2005) envisaged five scenarios where “the use of nuclear weapons might be requested,” namely, “to attack adversary installations including weapons of mass destruction, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons, or the command and control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies” and “to counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces”. The doctrine further cites, “Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use” [60].

The possibility of nuclear strikes against Iran pose staggeringly frightening implications for the human family, as the very nations crying foul about the danger of nuclear weapons have prepared the legal infrastructure to use them against others, preemptively. While trust towards the Iranian regime remains questionable among segments of the Iranian population and the international community, Tehran has complied with the IAEA and no evidence exists to implicate Iran with constructing a nuclear weapon. While the fiery rhetoric of Iranian and Israeli officials remains entirely counterproductive, Tel Aviv has shown the least initiative to constructively partake in diplomacy with Iran, as top Israeli officials refuse to even meet with US envoy to the P5+1, Wendy Sherman, who reportedly was sent to Tel Aviv to "reaffirm our unshakable commitment to Israel's security" [61]. As Israel aggressively employs an apartheid policy domestically, nuclear-armed Tel Aviv boasts its right to strike Iran without consent from any other nation [62]. As our species approaches the increasingly dangerous crossroads of the 21st Century, nations such as Germany, Russia, India and China must utilize their collective influence and technology to mediate this impending security crisis in the Middle East.

Although Iran has asserted its right to develop peaceful nuclear technology as a signatory to the nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, its uranium-based fuel has wrought negative and inaccurate accusations regarding Tehran’s intentions to weaponize. To ensure the further deflection of erroneous accusations, Iran can truly make an example of itself by phasing out uranium-based nuclear technology and shifting to a liquid fuel based on molten-fluoride salts used in Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) nuclear technology powered by thorium, an obscure, mildly radioactive metal produced as a waste product from the mining of rare earth minerals. Thorium is plentiful, easily accessible and energy dense, a metric ton produces as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3,500,000 ton of coal [63]. Thorium-based reactors consume their own hazardous waste and would serve Iran’s internal needs far more effectively than its current technology. As a nuclear fuel, thorium is both cleaner and safer than uranium and produces benign alpha radiation, unable to even penetrate skin [64].

The governments of China [65] and India [66] have expressed great interest in further developing thorium molten-salt reactor technology. Iran holds 9% of the world’s oil reserves and 17% of its natural gas reserves; the abundant supply of fossil fuel resources has indirectly discouraged the pursuit of alternative renewable energy sources [67]. Iran has enormous potential as a producer of geothermal energy, particularly in the provinces of Azerbaijan and Tehran [68]. There is no shortage of solutions to the current problems faced by the international community in its efforts to oversee peaceful energy technology in Iran. China, Germany and India could share their growing technical expertise with Iran to develop energy solutions that can never be used as a pretext for external military strikes. No credible basis exists to warrant the implementation of economic sanctions against Iran, which are ostensibly in place to coax social unrest and collapse the Iranian economy.

For all the belligerence exuded by the current Iranian regime, the unwavering aggressive it receives from outside forces does nothing to offer the people of Iran any tangible solutions to better themselves and their standard of living. Although the further application of sanctions will inevitably have damaging effects on Tehran, inflated oil price fluctuations have the potential to fracture the fledging austerity-states of the European Union. The failure of emerging markets to adhere to full embargoes on Iran once they come into effect would send a strong message to the architects of such disastrous policy. As nations such as China and Russia acknowledge the imbalanced nature of power in the Security Council and the aggressive stance of the United States and Israel, these nations can best utilize their power by offering technological and diplomatic solutions to avert the detrimental social, economic and spiritual consequences of war.

Nile Bowie is an independent writer and photojournalist based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Notes

[1] Iran accuses world powers of creating 'difficult atmosphere' in nuclear talks, Haaretz, May 24, 2012

[2] Iran claims ‘undeniable right’ to enrich Uranium: new talks, same deadlock, Russia Today, May 25, 2012

[3] Israel takes back promise to Obama not to attack Iran before the election, Russia Today, May 24, 2012

[4] Top Commander Reiterates Iran's Commitment to Full Annihilation of Israel, FARS, May 20, 2012

[5] Deal or no deal, Iran may be bombed – Israeli minister, Russia Today, May 23, 2012

[6] Germany Ready to Find Diplomatic Solution to Iran's N. Issue, FARS, May 25, 2012

[7] US Senate approves sanctions against Iran, New Straits Times, May 22, 2012

[8] China slams new US sanctions against Iran, PressTV, May 23, 2012

[9] Moscow Raps US New Sanctions against Iran as Irrational Move, FARS, May 25, 2012

[10] India against more sanctions on Iran, The Hindu, February 11, 2012

[11] India, Iran look at $25 billion trade by 2015, The Economic Times, March 12, 2012

[12] Japan to reduce oil imports, BBC, January 12, 2012

[13] Saudi oil minister pledges Seoul stable crude supply, The Korea Herald, February 3, 2012

[14] Japan to seek stable oil supply from Saudi Arabia, Reuters, May 7, 2012

[15] South Africa Engen buys Saudi crude to replace Iranian supplies, Al Arabiya, May 9, 2012

[16] Saudi Arabia says kingdom pumping 10 million bpd, the most in 5 months, Al Arabiya, May 8, 2012

[17] Exclusive: Iran sanctions seen spurring more Saudi oil sales to U.S. Reuters, March 16, 2012

[18] Iran: Meetings with IAEA Head Paves Way for Negotiations with 5+1, FARS, May 24, 2012

[19] Turkey cuts 20% of oil purchases from Iran, Financial Times, March 30, 2012

[20] U.S. exempts 11 states from Iran sanctions; China, India exposed, Reuters, March 21, 2012

[21] Ibid

[22] Iranian Minister Blames EU Sanctions for Hike in Oil Prices, FARS, March 25, 2012

[23] No One Can Afford Another Round of Iran Sanctions, OilPrice, May 21, 2012

[24] Iran raises interest rate on bank deposits, Financial Times, January 27, 2012

[25] Warning Iran, and lacerating Mitt Romney, a former Mossad chief steps out of the shadows, The Times of Israel, March 28, 2012

[26] Iran’s Nuclear Grass Eaters, Project Syndicate, April 4, 2012

[27] Steinitz: SWIFT sanctions may lead to Iran's economic collapse, YNET News, March 18, 2012

[28] Israeli threats of attack sparked new wave of Iran sanctions, officials say, Haaretz, March 16, 2012

[29] Iran’s Middle Class on Edge as World Presses In, The New York Times, February 6, 2012

[30] Q&A: Iran sanctions, BBC, February 6, 2012

[31] Our Men in Iran? The New Yorker, April 6, 2012

[32] Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News, MSNBC, February 9, 2012

[33] Stuxnet Loaded by Iran Double Agents, ISSSource, April 11, 2012

[34] Moqtada Sadr Reiterates Iraqis' Demand for Expulsion of MKO Terrorists, Fars News Agency, September 19, 2011

[35] About the National Council of Resistance of Iran, The National Council of Resistance of Iran, 2010

[36] Are the MEK’s U.S. friends its worst enemies? Foreign Policy, March 8, 2012

[37] Mujahideen-e Khalq: Former U.S. Officials Make Millions Advocating For Terrorist Organization, Huffington Post, August 8, 2011

[38] Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News, MSNBC, February 9, 2012

[39] Israel funds terrorist MKO: Investigation, PressTV, May 24, 2012

[40] Friends of Syria recognize SNC as 'legitimate representative', Russia Today, April 1, 2012

[41] Iran's supreme leader orders investigation into claims of vote fraud, Xinhua, June 15, 2009

[42] Iran's presidential candidates, BBC, June 12, 2009

[43] Iran: Further information: Opposition leaders arbitrarily held, Amnesty International, 2011

[44] Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons, The Washington Post, April 13, 2012

[45] Iranian Experts Place Fuel Plates into Heart of Tehran Research Reactor, FARS, May 23, 2012

[46] Ibid

[47] Ibid

[48] UN nuclear chief: Deal reached on Iran probe, Russia Today, May 22, 2012

[49] Traces of uranium enriched to higher than previous levels found at Iran site, Haaretz, May 25, 2012

[50] Blix: US, Israel source most of IAEA allegations, PressTV, March 25, 2012

[51] Envoy: UN Atomic Report Endorses Peaceful Nature of Iran's N. Activities, FARS, May 26, 2012

[52] Iran has a Nuclear Power, Not a Weapons Program, 21st Century & Technology, December 2, 2011

[53] Top US Nuclear Expert Tells Obama: There Is No Weapons Threat From Iran, LaRouche Pac, February 25, 2012

[54] 'Iran has enough enriched uranium for 5 nuclear bombs' The Times of India, May 26, 2012

[55] SPECIAL REPORT-Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent, Reuters, March 23, 2012

[56] 50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Brookings Institute, August 1998

[57] Nuclear Weapons - Israel, Federation of American Scientists, January 8, 2007

[58] Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, March 2005

[59] Ibid

[60] Ibid

[61] U.S. sends senior envoy to Israel to brief government on Iran nuclear talks, Haaretz, May 25, 2012

[62] Bad news unwelcome: Israel refuses to listen to US envoy’s report on Iran, Russia Today, May 26, 2012

[63] How Iran can have nuclear power and the world can have peace, Russia Today, May 07, 2012

[64] Thorium: How to save Europe’s nuclear revival, Centre for European Reform, June 2011

[65] India plans 'safer' nuclear plant powered by thorium, The Guardian, November 1, 2011

[67] Renewable energy in Iran: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development, International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, Spring 2004

[68] Status of Geothermal Energy in Iran, 19th World Energy Congress, September 2004

;

Nile Bowie is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Nile Bowie

**Housecarl** · 05-27-2012 04:55 PM

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-too-late.html

Syria Houla massacre: Russia told to intervene before it is too late
William Hague issued an ultimatum to Russia last night to intervene in the Syrian crisis before it was too late, warning that the massacre of at least 108 people, including 32 young children in Houla, had taken the country to the brink of civil war.

By Peter Foster, Washington

10:41PM BST 27 May 2012

Speaking shortly before boarding a flight to Moscow for meetings with his counterpart Sergei Lavrov on Monday, the Foreign Secretary said that Russia now faced a stark choice between using its leverage with the Assad regime or risking it's last bastion of influence in the Middle East descending into chaos.

Urging Moscow to put its full weight behind the six-point United Nations plan for Syria brokered by the former secretary general Kofi Annan, he said: "The Russians have a great deal of leverage over the Syrian regime.

"We've had many differences of view over Russia at the Security Council, but Russia does support the Annan plan and so I hope Russia will redouble its efforts to get the Assad regime to implement that plan," he said.

"It's not in the interests of Russia, just as it's not in the interests of anybody in the world for Syria to descend in to an even bloodier situation and in to full scale civil war and that is now the danger."

Russia’s deputy ambassador to the UN cast doubt on the culpability of Syria’s government for a massacre of more than 100 people in the central town of Houla.

Related Articles

They moved from family to family, killing them one by one
27 May 2012

BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'
27 May 2012

Syrians protest against Houla killings
27 May 2012

Syrian government denies troops were behind Houla massacre
27 May 2012

Syria: Ceasefire in tatters as children killed
26 May 2012

UK condemns 'naked savagery' of Houla
27 May 2012

“We need to establish whether it was the Syrian authorities,” Igor Pankin said at the United Nations. “There are substantial grounds to believe that the majority of those who were killed were either slashed, cut by knives, or executed at point blank distance.”

Mr Annan, the joint UN-Arab League envoy, is due to arrive in Damascus on Monday morning for talks over the beleaguered Six-Point Plan to end the violence and begin a political process in Syria.

Mr Hague, who said he was "sickened" by the images from the massacre at Houla, has also called an emergency session of the UN Security Council and summoned Syria's most senior diplomat to the Foreign Office for an official dressing down. The council was due to meet on the issue last night.

The UK mission to Moscow came amid deepening international outrage over the massacre which the head of the UN observer mission in Syria, Maj-Gen Robert Mood, also warned would fan the flames of instability and "may lead the country to civil war".

As violence continued in Syria, the Houla massacre has already stretched the credibility of the UN mission in Syria, with the Free Syrian Army issuing a statement saying that the deal was "going to hell" unless there was concerted international intervention.

Before departing for Moscow, Mr Hague held talks with Kofi Annan, Mr Hague said there was a "good case" for increasing the size of the 300-strong UN observer mission, but stressed that time was now running out for the Six Point Plan, announced in April.

"I've discussed with him [Mr Annan] the urgency of getting a political process going in Syria which is his objective before time runs out," he added, "Time will run out before too long on that." As the groundswell of Western condemnation grew – Russia remained silent - Syria "categorically" denied responsibility for the killings at Houla blaming "terrorists" for the incident.

"Women, children and old men were shot dead. This is not the hallmark of the heroic Syrian army," a Syrian foreign ministry spokesman said in Damascus, who claimed that Syria was being subjected to a "tsunami of lies".

A British diplomatic source dismissed the denials, describing them as a transparent and "concerning" attempt to "seek impunity and lay the blame on others".

Mr Hague said that it was still too early to discuss military or other interventions in Syria, and that for now all efforts were being focused on trying to get the Annan plan to stick – although acknowledging that failure would come with consequences.

"If we come to the point where the Annan plan has clearly failed, Britain will be arguing for a stronger response from the world, from the United Nations Security Council, increasing our support to the opposition, imposing further sanctions and measures on the Syrian regime," he said.

In Washington, the Obama administration condemned the Houla massacre as the work of the Assad regime, pledging that the "rule by murder" must come to an end, without specifying measures.

The White House is reported to be focusing on pressuring the newly re-election Russian president Vladimir Putin to back a deal that would ease out the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, in a fix similar to that brokered in Yemen.

Under the deal, which White House officials said was under discussion, Mr Assad would leave office as the first step in a developing a political process, as happened with the former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh.

However both independent analysts and UK foreign office sources have expressed skepticism over whether such a deal can be replicated in Syria, a security state where Mr Assad's minority Alawite sect rules over a Sunni majority.

Thread: 05/24 to 05/30 TheWindsofWAR***

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

Thread: 05/24 to 05/30 ***The***Winds***of***WAR***

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

Thread: 05/24 to 05/30 TheWindsofWAR***