noworldsystem.com


Russia: We’ll Nuke ‘Aggressors’ First

Russia: We’ll Nuke ‘Aggressors’ First

Wired
October 14, 2009

Russia is weighing changes to its military doctrine that would allow for a “preventive” nuclear strike against its enemies — even those armed only with conventional weapons. The news comes just as American diplomats are trying to get Russia to cut down its nuclear stockpile, and put the squeeze on Iran’s suspect nuclear program.

In an interview published today in Izvestia, Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the Kremlin’s security council, said the new doctrine offers “different options to allow the use of nuclear weapons, depending on a certain situation and intentions of a would-be enemy. In critical national security situations, one should also not exclude a preventive nuclear strike against the aggressor.”

What’s more, Patrushev said, Russia is revising the rules for the employment of nukes to repel conventionally armed attackers, “not only in large-scale, but also in a regional and even a local war.”

Gulp. If I were in Georgia — or in any other country Russia considers part of its sphere of influence — that formulation would make me pretty anxious.

The Russian Federation is considering the “first strike” option as part of a larger overhaul of military doctrine. The new doctrine, which is supposed to be presented to President Dmitry Medvedev later this year, is supposed to provide “flexible and timely” responses to national security threats.

The United States and Russia may prepping to negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty after President Obama declared a “reset” in relations between Moscow and Russia. But Patrushev, apparently, didn’t get the memo. In the interview, he takes a swipe at the United States and NATO, saying that the alliance “continues to press for the admission of new members to NATO, the military activities of the bloc are intensifying, and U.S. strategic forces are conducting intensive exercises to improve the management of strategic nuclear weapons.”

In other words, Moscow is holding to a hard line, precisely at a time when Washington is trying to play nice. The administration wants the Kremlin’s help — to pressure Iran, to revive the arms-control process — but the bear still needs to brandish nukes.

 



NATO Air Strike Kills 150 Afghan Civilians

NATO Air Strike Kills 150 Afghan Civilians


Rahmatullah, 19, a victim of Friday’ NATO air strike, tries to sit up on his bed in a hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, Sept. 5, 2009.

Pajwok Afghan News
September 5, 2009

Residents of Chahar Dara district in northern Kunduz province say more than 150 civilians were killed and 20 others wounded in Friday’s air strike by NATO-led forces.

The bombing in Haji Aman village came as insurgents and residents emptied oil into jerry canes from tankers hijacked by Taliban militants from the Kunduz-Baghlan Highway.

Inhabitants of the area told Pajhwok Afghan News all those killed in the bombardment were civilians and there were no Taliban at the site at the time the attack took place. Fighters had left the scene after they asked the people to take fuel for free.

An elder from Sarak-i-Bala neighbourhood, Abdul Rahim, said 15 children were among the 50 people of Yaqubi village killed in the bombing raid.

The man, who lost two sons in the incident, argued: “Poverty brought us to this stage.” No guerrillas were among the dead, he said, explaining the fighters well before the deadly assault.

A 50-year-old woman bitterly cried while standing in front of her ruined house. She said her three sons, husband and a grandson perished in the bombardment. Locals showed this reporter as many as 50 graves of civilian victims.

In the Maulvi Naeem village, residents said 20 civilians were killed in the incident. Haji Najmuddin, a tribal elder, lost two nephews. He claimed chemicals bombs were dropped on the villagers. Clothes of his nephews were not damaged but their bodies were badly charred, the man argued.

This reporter saw the graves of those killed in the air strike. Seventy of the fatalities were from Yaqubi and Maulvi Naeem villages and the rest from three other areas.

Meanwhile, Kunduz Governor Eng. Muhammad Omar said a delegation from Kabul had arrived in the district to investigate the incident and determine the exact number of civilian deaths.

Government gives up hope of more European Nato help in Afghanistan
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6143065/Government-gives-up-hope-of-more-European-Nato-help-in-Afghanistan.html

Afghan President: NATO Air Strike a “Major Error”

Afghan air strike galvanises war protesters

US troops raid Afghan hospital, says aid group

EU Nations Slam NATO Air Strike in Afghanistan

 



Mass Censorship of Dead Marine Photo

Mass Censorship of Dead Marine Photo

Paul Craig Roberts
Antiwar.com
September 7, 2009

Americans have lost their ability for introspection, thereby revealing their astounding hypocrisy to the world.

U.S. War Secretary Robert Gates has condemned the Associated Press and a reporter, Julie Jacobson, embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan, for taking and releasing a photo of a U.S. Marine who was wounded in action and died from his injury.

The photographer was on patrol with the Marines when they came under fire. She found the courage and presence of mind to do her job. Her reward is to be condemned by the warmonger Gates as “insensitive.” Gates says her employer, the Associated Press, lacks “judgment and common decency.”

The American Legion jumped in and denounced the Associated Press for a “stunning lack of compassion and common decency.”

To stem opposition to its wars, the War Department hides signs of American casualties from the public. Angry that evidence escaped the censor, the war secretary and the American Legion attacked with politically correct jargon: “insensitive,” “offended,” and the “anguish” and “pain and suffering” inflicted upon the Marine’s family. The War Department sounds like it is preparing a harassment tort.

Isn’t this passing the buck? The Marine lost his life not because of the Associated Press and a photographer, but because of the war criminals – Gates, Bush, Cheney, Obama, and the U.S. Congress that supports wars of naked aggression that serve no American purpose, but which keep campaign coffers filled with contributions from the armaments companies.

Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard is dead because the U.S. government and a significant percentage of the U.S. population believe that the U.S. has the right to invade, bomb, and occupy other peoples who have raised no hand against us but are demonized with lies and propaganda.

For the American war secretary it is a photo that is insensitive, not America’s assertion of the right to determine the fate of Afghanistan with bombs and soldiers.

The exceptional “virtuous nation” does not think it is insensitive for America’s bombs to blow innocent villagers to pieces. On Sept. 4, the day before Gates’ outburst over the “insensitive” photo, Agence France Presse reported from Afghanistan that a U.S./NATO air strike had killed large numbers of villagers who had come to get fuel from two tankers that had been hijacked from negligent and inattentive occupation forces:

“’Nobody was in one piece. Hands, legs, and body parts were scattered everywhere. Those who were away from the fuel tanker were badly burnt,’ said 32-year-old Mohammad Daud, depicting a scene from hell. The burned-out shells of the tankers, still smoking in marooned wrecks on the riverbank, were surrounded by the charred-meat remains of villagers from Chahar Dara district in Kunduz province, near the Tajik border. Dr. Farid Rahid, a spokesperson in Kabul for the ministry of health, said up to 250 villagers had been near the tankers when the air strike was called in.”

What does the world think of the United States? The American war secretary and a U.S. military veterans association think a photo of an injured and dying American soldier is insensitive, but not the wipeout of an Afghan village that came to get needed fuel.

The U.S. government is like a criminal who accuses the police of his crime when he is arrested or a sociopathic abuser who blames the victim. It is a known fact that the CIA has violated U.S. law and international law with its assassinations, kidnappings, and torture. But it is not this criminal agency that will be held accountable. Instead, those who will be punished will be those moral beings who, appalled at the illegality and inhumanity of the CIA, leaked the evidence of the agency’s crimes. The CIA has asked the U.S. Justice (sic) Department to investigate what the CIA alleges is the “criminal disclosure” of its secret program to murder suspected foreign terrorist leaders abroad. As we learned from Gitmo, those suspected by America are overwhelmingly innocent.

The CIA program is so indefensible that when CIA director Leon Panetta found out about it six months after being in office, he cancelled the program (assuming those running the program obeyed) and informed Congress.

Yet, the CIA wants the person who revealed its crime to be punished for revealing secret information. A secret agency this unmoored from moral and legal standards is a greater threat to our country than are terrorists. Who knows what false flag operation it will pull off in order to provide justification and support for its agenda. An agency that is more liability than benefit should be abolished.

The agency’s program of assassinating terrorist leaders is itself fraught with contradictions and dangers. The hatred created by the U.S. and Israel is independent of any leader. If one is killed, others take his place. The most likely outcome of the CIA assassination program is that the agency will be manipulated by rivals, just as the FBI was used by one mafia family to eliminate another. In order to establish credibility with groups that they are attempting to penetrate, CIA agents will be drawn into participating in violent acts against the U.S. and its allies.

Accusing the truthteller instead of the evildoer is the position that the neoconservatives took against the New York Times when after one year’s delay, which gave George W. Bush time to get reelected, the Times published the NSA leak that revealed that the Bush administration was committing felonies by violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The neocons, especially those associated with Commentary magazine, wanted the New York Times indicted for treason. To the evil neocon mind, anything that interferes with their diabolical agenda is treason.

This is the way many Americans think. America über alles! No one counts but us (and Israel). The deaths we inflict and the pain and suffering we bring to others are merely collateral damage on the bloody path to American hegemony.

The attitude of the “freedom and democracy” U.S. government is that anyone who complains of illegality or immorality or inhumanity is a traitor. The Republican Sen. Christopher S. Bond is a recent example. Bond got on his high horse about “irreparable damage” to the CIA from the disclosures of its criminal activities. Bond wants those “back stabbers” who revealed the CIA’s wrongdoings to be held accountable. Bond is unable to grasp that it is the criminal activities, not their disclosure, that is the source of the problem. Obviously, the Whistleblower Protection Act has no support from Sen. Bond, who sees it as just another law to plough under.

This is where the U.S. government stands today: Ignoring and covering up government crimes is the patriotic thing to do. To reveal the government’s crimes is an act of treason. Many Americans on both sides of the aisle agree.

Yet, they still think that they are The Virtuous Nation, the exceptional nation, the salt of the earth.

Many Newspapers Fail to Carry AP Photo of Deadly Afghan Incident

AP Photo Of Wounded Marine Sparks Debate

 



New Agreement Lets US Strike Any Country From Inside Iraq

New Agreement Lets US Strike Any Country From Inside Iraq

Gulf News
June 3, 2008

A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned.

Senior Iraqi military sources have told Gulf News that the long-term controversial agreement is likely to include three major items.

Under the agreement, Iraqi security institutions such as Defence, Interior and National Security ministries, as well as armament contracts, will be under American supervision for ten years.

The agreement is also likely to give American forces permanent military bases in the country, as well as the right to move against any country considered to be a threat against world stability or acting against Iraqi or American interests.

The military source added, “According to this agreement, the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border.”

The sources confirmed that the American army is in the process of completing the building of the military facilities and runways for the permanent bases.

He added that the American air bases in Kirkuk and Mosul will be kept for no longer than three years. However, he said there were efforts by the Americans to include the Kirkuk base in the list of permanent bases.

The sources also said that a British brigade was expected to remain at the international airport in Basra for ten years as long as the American troops stayed in the permanent bases in Iraq.

Iraqi analysts said that the second item of the controversial agreement which permits American forces on Iraqi territories to launch military attacks against any country it considers a threat is addressed primarily to Iran and Syria.

Iran has raised serious concerns in the past few days over the Iraqi-American security agreement and followed it with issuing religious fatwas and called for demonstrations, mainly by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr movement, who is close to Iran, against the agreement.

 

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

Randall Mikkelsen
London Independent
June 5, 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called “strategic alliance” without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create “a permanent occupation”. He added: “The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans.”

Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

 

US issues threat to Iraq’s $50bn foreign reserves in military deal

Patrick Cockburn
London Independent
June 6, 2008

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.

Iraq’s foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq’s funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq’s independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new “strategic alliance” with the United States.

The threat by the American side underlines the personal commitment of President George Bush to pushing the new pact through by 31 July. Although it is in reality a treaty between Iraq and the US, Mr Bush is describing it as an alliance so he does not have to submit it for approval to the US Senate.

Iraqi critics of the agreement say that it means Iraq will be a client state in which the US will keep more than 50 military bases. American forces will be able to carry out arrests of Iraqi citizens and conduct military campaigns without consultation with the Iraqi government. American soldiers and contractors will enjoy legal immunity.

Read Full Article Here

Recent News:

Iran: ’US security pact will enslave Iraqis’
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=58683&sectionid=351020101

’Ayatollah will not allow US-Iraq deal’
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=57198&sectionid=351020201

Secret Security Pact Will Ensure Permanent Iraq Occupation
http://www.infowars.net/articles/june2008/050608Iraq.htm

Shell-shocked Iraq veterans housed next to firing range
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/..-housed-next-to-firing-range-in-US.html

Nearly 20% Of Army In Afghanistan Is On Prozac
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811858,00.html

Analysis: May marks most violent month in Afghanistan since 2001
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/03/..fghanistan-since-2001/

Iraqi Parliamentarian: 70 Percent Of Iraqis Want Withdrawal
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/04/iraq-parliament/

Report: Bush Misused Iraq Intelligence
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc

Iraq At Odds With U.S. Over Troop Presence
O’Reilly gets angry while interviewing Scott McClellan
Canada May Give Asylum To U.S. War Resisters

 



Obama Threatens to Attack Iran

Obama Threatens to Attack Iran

Anti War League
May 24, 2008

I just listened to a pretty amazing speech that Barack Obama gave last Thursday in Boca Raton, Florida. I’ll leave it to others to comment on the one-sided, pro-Israel, pro-Zionist nature of the speech. One commentator called it “a high-wire exercise of political pandering.”

I’d just like to point out this section which demands to be quoted at length:

“And the gravest threat to Israel today obviously comes from Iran, that their radical regime continues to pursue the ability to build a nuclear weapon and continues to support terrorism across the region. President Ahmadinejad continues his offensive denials of the Holocaust and his disturbing denunciations of Israel.

The threat of Iran is real and is great. And my goal as president will be to eliminate it. Ending the war in Iraq will be, I believe, an important step towards achieving that goal, because it will give us increased flexibility in our dealings with Iran and increased legitimacy in the region.

Make no mistake about it. Our invasion of Iraq has empowered Iran. It is one of the biggest strategic blunders that we have made.

(APPLAUSE)

Read Full Article Here

From AIPAC to the Cuban Exiles: Is Obama Turning Right?
http://www.counterpunch.org/kafoury05272008.html

Obama says won’t guarantee Ahmadinejad a meeting
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080527/ts_n..ma_enemies_dc

Bilderberg Luminary To Select Obama’s Running Mate
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/052308_bilderberg_luminary.htm

Obama Deathwatch: Clinton, The Serial Death-Wisher
http://mparent7777-1.livejournal.com/275685.html

Fox commentator apologizes for Obama assassination comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKlv6vQca8k

 



High Tide: The Ron Paul Revolution Continues


High Tide: The Ron Paul Revolution Continues
Grassroots effort stresses continuing the Ron Paul Revolution, restoring the spirit of freedom in the country and turning back the tide of sprawling foreign wars and disastrous economic policy

Jones Report
March 13, 2008

The High Tide could be a lifting anthem for the Ron Paul Revolution as it seeks ways to voice its message in the post-campaign era. The video features high quality 3-D animation and Dr. Ron Paul’s voice. It’s stunning imagery dramatically portrays the dark landscape of spreading wars and an unfolding economic wasteland that have resulted from bad policy.

It carries also the spirit of freedom that Ron Paul hoped his campaign would rekindle– and in many ways already has– as people across the country are now sparking debate over scaling back government power and following constitutionally-based policies.

Grassroots supporter Nate Evans (ArcFx, WeAreChange.org) donated months of work to put together the 3-D promo (click here for high quality) that will have to settle for underscoring the high-point of an unusual presidential campaign that has now receded from hopes of winning the GOP nomination. Nevertheless, the campaign succeeded in shedding light on the skewed policies of the phony candidates who shared the stage with him. His disenfranchisement in polls, electronic voting and media coverage demonstrated the manipulation over so-called free elections.

Ron Paul recently conceded that “convention victory” had been lost, but that the fight would continue. “Many victories have been achieved due to your hard work and enthusiasm,” said Paul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3MLTvYBQy0

“I don’t mind playing a key role in the revolution, but it has to be more than a Ron Paul revolution,” he said. Somehow, that is reflected in this animated video that transcends the mere man Ron Paul is individually and elevates instead the ideas and history his policy is based upon.

So, what will be the high mark of the Ron Paul Revolution, in their campaign for the presidency? What is its the lasting impact, and in what form will it continue?

Paul urges the continuation of meet-up groups, and even campaign races in effort to gain more delegates and take small victories where they are still available in the election, if only to stretch the political muscle for a future contest.

“At the rate our economy is slipping, we will likely see the disintegration of the American empire,” said Paul. “Today’s events should be seen as a tremendous opportunity to change our country for the good.”

The Ron Paul Revolution intends to make an lasting impression when it will march together in Washington. Which direction that will take us, is the next step.

 

Ron Paul On The Alex Jones Show – (3/14/2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gz5JC8QcNU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99rpIl9XVB0

 



Generals To Quit If U.S. Strikes Iran

Generals To Quit If U.S. Strikes Iran

Press TV
February 26, 2008

Some senior US military commanders are prepared to resign if President Bush orders a military strike against Iran, a new report says.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” The Sunday Times quoted Monday a source with close ties to British intelligence .

“There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible,” the source added.

If proven true a revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented because ‘American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source.

Robert Gates, the defense secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.

Iran has announced that in face of any aggression it will respond like a ‘tsunami’.