AMD talks with US crumble; Russia beefs up early-warning radar
RT | 11 January, 2012
The Russian Defense Ministry announces plans for extensive new early-warning radar system as talks with US and NATO over the controversial European missile defense system hit the wall.
The announcement comes on the heels of President Dmitry Medvedev’s pledge to fortify national defense.
In addition to a newly inaugurated radar system located in Kaliningrad, several more radar stations will be placed on combat duty in 2012, Alexei Zolotukhin, an official with the Russian Defense Ministry press service for Aerospace Defense Troops, told reporters on Sunday.
“The new radar station Voronezh-DM, located in the Kaliningrad region, became part of the missile attack warning system in late 2011,” Zolotukhin said. “A radar station is fully ready to be put on combat duty in the Leningrad region. Another radar station has been launched in the Krasnodar Territory.”
A new generation radar station will also be launched in the Irkutsk Region, he revealed.
The spokesman said the new radar will go online following a series of state tests to be conducted this year.
Responding to Washington’s reluctance to cooperate with Moscow in a US missile defense system in Eastern Europe, President Medvedev in November said Russia would deploy strike systems in the west and south of the country and deploy Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad Region. Russia has repeatedly warned that without its full participation in the system, situated just miles from the Russian border, it will be forced to respond to what it perceives as a threat to national security.
The Russian leader also reminded his American colleagues that Russia reserves the right to withdrawal from New START if the two sides fail to reach agreement over missile defense in Europe.
“In the event of unfavorable developments, Russia reserves the right to halt further steps in the disarmament sphere and, respectively, weapons control,” Medvedev said. “Besides, given the inseparable interconnection between the strategic offensive and defensive weapons, grounds may appear for our country’s withdrawal from the New START treaty.”
This was not the first time Moscow warned the US and NATO over the missile defense system, which Russia views as a potential threat to its national security. At the G-8 Summit in Deauville, France, in May, Medvedev warned that the world was heading toward another arms race.
“After 2020, if we do not come to terms, a real arms race will begin,” Medvedev warned.
Despite repeated warnings, the US and NATO seem determined to push ahead with missile defense without Russia’s cooperation, and despite the fact such a decision could sink the “reset” in relations forged between Medvedev and US President Barack Obama.
On April 8, 2009, Medvedev and Obama met at Prague Castle signed the biggest nuclear arms pact in a generation, which promised to shrink the limit of nuclear warheads to 1,550 per country.
Robert Bridge, RT
‘US builds hospitals in Georgia, readies for war with Iran’
RIA Novosti | 10 January, 2012
The United States is sponsoring the construction of facilities in Georgia on the threshold of a military conflict in Iran, a member of Georgian opposition movement Public Assembly, Elizbar Javelidze has stated.
According to the academician, that explains why President Mikhail Saakashvili is roaming the republic opening new hospitals in its regions.
“These are 20-bed hospitals…It’s an American project. A big war between the US and Iran is beginning in the Persian Gulf. $5 billion was allocated for the construction of these 20-bed military hospitals,” Javelidze said in an interview with Georgian paper Kviris Kronika (News of the Week), as cited by Newsgeorgia website.
The opposition member stated that the construction is mainly paid from the American pocket.
In addition, airports are being briskly built in Georgia and there are talks of constructing a port for underwater vessels in Kulevi on the eastern Black Sea coast in Georgia.
Javelidze believes that it is all linked to the deployment of US military bases on the Georgian soil. Lazika – one of Saakashvili’s mega-projects, a new city that will be built from a scratch – will be “an American military town”. According to the politician, “a secret airdrome” has already been erected in the town of Marneuli, southern Georgia.
The opposition member wondered who would protect Georgia in case if Iran fires its missiles against US military facilities on the territory of the Caucasian state.
All in all, about 30 new hospitals and medical centers were opened in the former Soviet republic in December last year. The plan is to build over a hundred more.
As for Lazika, the Georgian president announced his ambitious idea to build a second-largest city in Georgia, its western economic and trade center, at the end of 2011. According to the plan – which was slammed by his opponents and many analysts – Saakashvili’s dream-town will become home to at least half a million people within a decade.
Twisted Logic of Using Violence to Achieve Peace
By Ramzy Baroud | Palestine Chronicle | January 4, 2012
‘Sooner or later, there will be no escape from conducting a significant operation [in Gaza],’ said Israeli army Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Benny Gantz on December 27, the third anniversary of Operation Cast Lead.
Gantz’s chillingly casual remarks were cited as just another nonchalant declaration of war against a besieged, impoverished, overcrowded and routinely bombarded stretch of land. From the Israeli military and political point of view, Gaza merely exists as an opportunity for the Israeli army to test its latest weapon technology and send political messages to Israel’s foes in the region.
As if to validate Gantz’s logic, the ardently right-wing Israeli Jerusalem Post elaborated on December 28: “The Israel Air Force, working with the Shin Bet [Israel Security Agency], fired a missile at Gaza terrorists [fighters] involved in recent attacks on Israel, killing one and injuring two others.” They were ‘terrorists’ because Israel has designated them so. There was no due process and none was expected. When it comes to reporting on Israel/Palestine, corporate media largely relies on Israeli lies and propaganda. And one moral crisis begets another. The Israeli propaganda is predicated mostly on racism, not just in its view of Palestinians in Gaza, but of all Arabs.
Let’s examine the curious logic of Yuli Edelstein, Israel’s Propaganda and Diaspora Minister. In a recent talk in Or Yehuda, the man laid out his understanding of how peace can be achieved. “As long as the Arab nation continues to be a deplorable nation, which continues investing in infrastructure for terrorism, education to hate, and welfare for the families of shaheeds [martyrs], there will be no peace,” he said, according to Yossi Gurvitz in +972 online magazine.
Gurvitz further wrote: “I phoned the minister’s office for comment, and asked his spokesman: ‘Are you aware of the fact there are some 80 million Arabs in the world, from Sudan to Syria?’ He replied: ‘Yes, there are — and the minister meant them all.'”
I must admit that cogent political analysis becomes difficult when a country’s foreign policy and military strategy are constructed on unabashed racism, ignorance and a reproduction of 19th century Orientalism. How is one to forecast the possibilities of a just peace in Palestine when a well-regarded Israeli minister places a condition on the ‘Arab nation’ to become less deplorable? How can Gaza avoid another ‘Operation Cast Lead’ if its fate has already been sealed, with the ambiguous time frame of ‘sooner or later’?
It is particularly frustrating to hear Israeli politicians berating Palestinians for not being a deserving ‘peace partner’ when all that the Israeli government has to offer is one war of choice after another. Israel is increasingly ruled by the kind of fundamentalism and militancy that would not be tolerated anywhere else in the world. It is telling that Gantz’s ‘sooner or later’ remarks were followed by another interesting statement: “Gantz said that in certain circumstances and during non-official military events, the Israeli army would be prepared to exempt religious soldiers from participation if they are uncomfortable hearing women sing” (Jerusalem Post).
Such tolerance of religious fanaticism in Israel is a reflection of the growing role of religious extremism in the country. For the Israeli government to win favour among its constituents, all it needs to do is to blitz Gaza, rob more West Bank land, carry out more ethnic cleansing in occupied east Jerusalem or push a few more racist legislation against Israel’s Arab minority. Somehow, this seems to bring about a sense of serenity in Israel. The military emerges as the defender of the troubled borders, and a temporary political unity prevails.
Of course, the obvious truth regarding Israel’s ill-intentions will always find its way through the cracks of mainstream media. This was the case in the unprecedented report issued by European Union ambassadors in Israel. It read in part: “While the international community is focused predominantly on restarting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, we should see Israel’s treatment of its minorities as a core issue, not second tier to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” The report added, “Israel’s Arab population is measurably worse off than its non-Arab majority in terms of income, education, housing and access to land..
In other words, no Palestinian anywhere is immune. Indeed, in every aspect of its relations with Palestinians — in Gaza, in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem, and in Israel itself — Israel’s attitude towards all Palestinians is defined by violence, ethnic cleansing and racial discrimination. Even minister Edelstein, who repudiated Arabs for being “deplorable”, himself reportedly lives in the illegal Jewish colony of Neve Daniel, constructed atop stolen Palestinian land (as reported by Stuart Littlewood, Redress).
It is odd that Israel demands security and peace from the very Palestinians who are deprived of every sense of peace, security, and freedom itself. And yet it is the ‘Arab nation’ that is ‘deplorable’ and deserving of endless war.
Three years after the Israeli war on Gaza, which killed over 1,400 and wounded over 5,500, there are few indications that Israel has in any way altered its attitude. To the contrary, it continues to exact further punishment, while the Israeli Knesset, media and public officials continue to dehumanise Palestinians and Arabs.
True, and sadly so, Gaza will “sooner or later” be the target of another ‘significant operation’ under the pretext of more excuses. But also true is the fact that Israeli crimes against Palestinians will continue to be exposed for the whole world to see. And ‘sooner or later’, this perpetual war against innocent people will have to stop.
~
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story – Pluto Press, London. (This article was originally published in Gulf News)
Glenn Greenwald presents 25 reasons to register as a Republican
Glenn Greenwald:
The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama … holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.
He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.
Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before. The nation suffers from what National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh just christened “Obama’s Romance with the CIA.” He has created what The Washington Post just dubbed “a vast drone/killing operation,” all behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and without a shred of oversight. Obama’s steadfast devotion to what Dana Priest and William Arkin called “Top Secret America” has severe domestic repercussions as well, building up vast debt and deficits in the name of militarism that create the pretext for the “austerity” measures which the Washington class (including Obama) is plotting to impose on America’s middle and lower classes… Full article at Salon.com
~
In almost half of all states the only way that you can voice your opposition to these despicable policies is to register as a Republican 30 days (in some states less) prior to the primary election. As a registered Republican you have the privilege of voting for the candidate that has taken a contrary position on all of these issues, Ron Paul.
You can also help send Romney or Gingrich packing as an added perk. But be sure to re-register as a Republican in time.
From The Center for Voting and Democracy:
Here are the types of Primaries in the states
Open primary:
Voters of any affiliation may vote for the candidate of whatever party they choose. Some of these open primary states may not have party registration at all; however open primary states do prohibit voters in X primary from going on to participate in Y’s primary or runoff. Yet, this prohibition can be difficult to enforce.
The crucial issue in open primary states is “crossover” voting, which can contribute to the victory of a nominee closer to the center or radically further away. It most often involves members of Party Y (either in an area dominated by Party X or when Party Y’s nominee is a foregone conclusion) voting for the Party X candidate whose views are the most reconciliable with their own. Though this brings the race closer to the center, Democratic and Republican party establishments generally dislike open primaries.
Occasionally, there are concerns about sabotage, or “party crashing,” which involves voting for the most polarizing candidate in the other party’s primary to bolster the chances that it will nominate someone “unelectable” to general election voters in November. An example is Republicans voting for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primary.
Closed primary:
Only voters registered with a given party can vote in the primary. Parties may have the option to invite unaffiliated voters to participate. Typically, however, independent voters are left out of the process entirely unless they choose to sacrifice their freedom of association for the opportunity to have their say in who represents them. Closed primaries may also exacerbate the radicalization that often occurs at the primary stage, when candidates must cater to the “base,” yet the “fringe” of the party are typically more motivated to turn out.
In a few states, independent voters may register with a party on Election Day. However, they must remain registered with that party until they change their affiliation again. A couple of states even allow voters registered with one party to switch their registration at the polls to vote in another party’s primary. In these rare instances, a closed primary can more closely resemble open or semi-closed primaries than the closed primaries of other states.
Semi-closed primary:
Independents may choose which party primary to vote in, but voters registered with a party may only vote in that party’s primary. The middle ground between the exclusion of independents in a closed primary and the free-for-all of open primaries, the semi-closed, primary mostly eliminates the concern about members registered to other parties “raiding” another’s election.
Of course people who align with Party X may theoretically still vote in Party Y’s primary if they just register as independent, but it appears most voters do not think that way. Moreover, the potential for sabotage through tactical party registration is also present in the strictest of closed primaries.
Top Two/ non-partisan primary:
This method puts all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, on the same ballot. The top two vote-getters then face off in the general election. This type of system is used in California, Louisiana, and Washington, as well as in Nebraska for non-partisan election such as for the state’s legislature.
Note on terminology: “Top Two” primaries are often referred to as “open primaries,” but that terminology has long been used in reference to the type of party primaries in which all voters may choose in which party’s primary to participate. By contrast, the “Top Two” system eliminates party primaries altogether. It is more accurately described as “nonpartisan primaries.” It would be more precise and less confusing to at least call them “nonpartisan open primaries.”
The following is a running list of states by types of party primary, updated December 2011:
Here are the individual state rules
| State | Closed | Open | Semi-Closed | Source | Remarks | Presidential Primary or Caucus |
| Alabama | x | Ala. Code § 17-13- 7 | Open | |||
| Alaska | R | D | Alaska Stat. §§ 15.25.014, 15.25.060 | Parties select who may vote in their primaries. To vote in the GOP primary, a voter must be registered as a Republican 30 days before Election Day. | Open | |
| Arizona | x | Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. No. I99-025 (R99-049) | Arizona uses a “Presidential Preference” system instead of a traditional primary system. Voters must be registered for a party in order to receive a ballot. | Closed | ||
| Arkansas | x | Ark. Code Ann. § § 7-7-306- 308 | Open | |||
| California | N/A | N/A | N/A | Proposition 14; CA S.B. 28 | California uses the “Top Two” Plan. On June 8, 2010 voters passed Prop. 14 to create a nonpartisan blanket primary system in which all candidates are listed on the same primary ballot and the top two vote recipients face off in the general election. | R: Closed; D: Semi-Closed |
| Colorado | x | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-7-201 | Closed, but unaffiliated voters may, however, change their party registration up until Election Day. Affiliated voters must change affiliation 29 days prior to the election. | Closed | ||
| Connecticut | x | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 9-431, 9-59 | Parties may choose to allow for semi-closed elections if they make a change to their party rules; however, as of now, the primaries remain closed. | Closed | ||
| District of Columbia | x | D.C. Code Ann. § 1-1001.09(g)(1); 1-1001.05(b)(1) | Closed primary for D.C. elected officials such as Delegate, Mayor, Chairman, members of Council, and Board of Education. | Closed | ||
| Delaware | x | Del. Code Ann. § 3110 | Closed | |||
| Florida | x | Fla. Stat. Ann. § 101.021 | Closed | |||
| Georgia | x | R: Semi-Closed; D: Open | ||||
| Hawaii | x | Haw. Rev. Stat § 12-31 | No party affiliation at registration. | Open | ||
| Idaho | R | D | Idaho Code Ann. § 34-904A | Until 2011, all Idaho primaries were open. After the GOP obtained a declaratory judgment that mandating open primaries violated freedom of association and was thus unconstitutional in Idaho Republican Party v. Ysura, the legislature passed a bill allowing parties to choose which type of primary they use. Democrats have chosen a semi-closed primary; unaffiliated voters may register a party at the polls on election day, but they are bound to that party affiliation at the next election. | R: Closed; D: Semi-Closed | |
| Illinois | x | 10 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-43, -45 | Voters declare their party affiliation at the polling place to a judge who must then announce it “in a distinct tone of voice, sufficiently loud to be heard by all persons in the polling place.” If there is no “challenge,” the voter is given the primary ballot for his or her declared party. | Semi-Closed | ||
| Indiana | x | Ind. Code §§ 3-10- 1-6, 1-9 | Classified as a “modified open” primary.” A voter must have voted in the last general election for a majority of the nominees of the party holding the primary, or if that voter did not vote in the last general election, that voter must vote for a majority of the nominees of that party who is holding the primary. However, there is really no way to enforce this, and cross-over occurs often. The same modified open primary is used for the presidential primary. | Open | ||
| Iowa | x | Voters may change party on the day of the primary election. | Closed | |||
| Kansas | R | D | Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 25-3301 | Federal courts declared KS law unconstitutional and now the parties decide who will vote in their primaries. In 2012, Republicans will hold closed primaries; however, they will allow unaffiliated voters to register Republican on election day. Democrats will allow both affiliated and unaffiliated voters to vote. | Closed | |
| Kentucky | x | Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 116.055 | Closed | |||
| Louisiana | x | Act 570 | The congressional primaries changed from a closed system to an open system with the passage of Act 570, effective January 1, 2011 | Closed | ||
| Maine | x | Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, §§ 111, 340 | Closed | |||
| Maryland | x | Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law §§ 3- 303, 8-202 | Parties may choose to hold open primaries, but must notify the State Board of Elections 6 months prior. | Closed | ||
| Massachusetts | x | Mass. Gen. Laws ch.53 §37 | Semi-Closed | |||
| Michigan | x | Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.575; Public Act 163 | Voters do not have to declare a political party to vote; but must vote for all one party once they enter the voting booth. | Closed | ||
| Minnesota | x | Minn. Stat. § 204D.08 | Open | |||
| Mississippi | x | Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-575 | No registration by party affiliation. However, in order to participate in the primary, a voter must support the nominations made in that primary. | Open | ||
| Missouri | x | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.397 | R: Semi-Closed; D: Open | |||
| Montana | x | Mont. Code Ann. § 13-10-301 | No party registration in MT. Each voter has the choice which ballot to use on Election Day. | Open | ||
| Nebraska | x | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-702 | Partisan primaires are closed, meaning congressional primaries are closed; however unaffiliated voters may vote for a candidate of a particular party. | Semi-Closed | ||
| Nevada | x | Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 293.287, 293.518 | Closed | |||
| New Hampshire | x | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann § 659:14 | Closed primaries in effect; but the statute allows for semi-closed primary if that party’s rules allow for it. | Semi-Closed | ||
| New Jersey | x | N.J. Stat. Ann. § 19:31-13.2 | Closed | |||
| New Mexico | x | N.M. Stat. §1-12-7.2 | Parties may choose to allow for semi-closed elections if they make a change to their party rules; however, as of now, the primaries remain closed. | Closed | ||
| New York | x | N.Y. Elec. Law § 5-304 | Closed | |||
| North Carolina | x | N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-59, -119 | State law provides for closed primaries, but both parties have opened them up to unaffiliated voters, who may choose on Election Day. | Semi-Closed | ||
| North Dakota | x | N.D. Cent. Code, § 40-21-06 | No party registration. | R: Closed; D: Open | ||
| Ohio | x | Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3513.19 | Voters’ right to vote in the primary may be challenged on the basis that they are not affiliated with the party for whom they are voting in the primary. | Closed | ||
| Oklahoma | x | Okla. Stat. §26-1-104 | Closed | |||
| Oregon | x | Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 247.203, 254.365 | Closed | |||
| Pennsylvania | x | 25 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2812 | Closed | |||
| Rhode Island | x | R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 17-9.1-23 | An unaffiliated voter for the past 90 days may designate his or her party affiliation on election day by voting for that party in the primary. | Semi-Closed | ||
| South Carolina | x | S.C.Code Ann. §§ 7-11-10 | A U.S. District Court judge ruled inGreenville County Republican Party Executive Committee v. South Carolina, that South Carolina’s open primary is constitutional. | Open | ||
| South Dakota | R | D | S.D. Codified Laws § 12-6-26 | Parties may choose to allow for semi-closed elections. Democrats have opened up their primaries to allow unaffiliated voters to vote. | R: Closed; D: Open | |
| Tennessee | x | Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-7-115 | Voters must affiliate with a party, but may choose to affiliate with that party on the election day. In Tennessee, voters are not registered with party affiliations. | Closed | ||
| Texas | x | Tex Elec. Code Ann. § 172.086 | No registration by party; voters are not held to affilation of past election. Each year, voters have a clean slate and must choose on primary day whether to vote by a party affilation or as unaffiliated; voters are held to that affiliation in the runoff. For the presidential primary, it is the same system as of December 19, 2011. | Open | ||
| Utah | R | D | Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-2-107.5 | Parties may choose to open up the primary. Currently, Republicans have a closed primary while Democrats have opened up the primary. | R: Closed; D: Open | |
| Vermont | x | Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 17, § 2363 | No registration by party. For presidential primary, voters must declare which ballots they want. | Open | ||
| Virginia | x | Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-530 | If a primary is called, it will be open. | Open | ||
| Washington | N/A | N/A | N/A | Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.52.112, 29A.36.171 | Similar to California’s Top Two system. | R: Closed; D: Semi-Closed |
| West Virginia | x | W. Va. Code § 3-5- 4 | Technically a closed system, but all parties allow any voter who is not registered with an official party to request their ballot for the Primary Election. | Semi-Closed | ||
| Wisconsin | x | Wis. Stat. § 6.80 | Voters may vote for only one party, but do not have to be affiliated with any party before coming into vote on Election Day. | Open | ||
| Wyoming | x | Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 22-5-212 | A voter can change his or her party affiliation on election day. |
It’s Sick to Depend on War for Economic Health
By Debbie Harbeson | The Suburban Voluntaryist | October 27, 2011
SELLERSBURG — During World War I, Randolph Bourne wrote, “War is the health of the state.” Bourne was referring to nation-states of course, but considering what I’ve learned recently, it seems appropriate to say “war is the health of the state of Indiana.”
According to a 2011 Indiana University report, back in 2001, Indiana received $1.8 billion from the federal government in the form of defense contracts. This number grew to more than $4 billion over the next decade. We all know why the growth occurred: War.
This report, titled “Building National Security: The Economic Impact of Indiana’s Defense Industry,” explains that the ability to attract federal defense spending is of great benefit to Indiana. The introductory letter signed by the lieutenant governor and the IU president says, “… it is critical to the state of Indiana and its work force that the defense industry continues to flourish here.”
I don’t agree. It’s extremely unwise to develop an economy based not only on government spending, which requires taxation and/or debt, but which also depends on death and destruction for growth.
As a result of their desire for continued and increased federal defense spending, a private-public partnership firm, Conexus Indiana, and the Indiana Economic Development Corp. have created the Indiana Aerospace and Defense Council for the specific purpose of promoting Indiana as a great place for the federal government to spend its defense budget.
It’s bad enough that state government uses the euphemism “economic development” in an attempt to centrally plan an economy by spending tax money in ways that favor some industries and businesses over others, but using funds to lobby for increased federal spending that supports war attacks the sensibilities of all peace-loving individuals.
But those who directly benefit don’t see it this way. The groups involved — the politicians, the state universities and the corporations — all benefit from the business that results when the nation-state participates in war. No one wants to acknowledge the horrible truth embedded in the fact that pushing the defense industry encourages the development of businesses that are healthiest during wartime — in other words, peace makes them sick.
This council also wants to increase the number of companies involved, but any business owner should be cautious about such a move. Besides the more obvious concerns when businesses get involved in war, there can also be plenty of unanticipated costs.
For example, as I was browsing around the website of CACI, the newest business to locate in New Albany’s Purdue Research Park, I was amazed at how much time, money and energy this company is spending as it works to disassociate itself from the abuse and torture controversy at Abu-Ghraib prison in Iraq. I wonder if they think the contract was worth it.
Indiana is already receiving fewer defense dollars as the federal government’s involvement in the current wars change. However, instead of seeing this as a warning, signaling a need to gain freedom from such dependency, officials are making decisions that will only suck Indiana in even deeper.
Should the businesses in this state increase their dependency on an “industry” that experiences its best growth when the federal government gets involved in nasty wars far from the actual soil they claim to be defending?
Or would it be better to spend energy working to create products and services that enrich lives, thereby encouraging mutually beneficial peaceful trade and friendly relationships?
I am concerned, and even mourning, this realization of where human energy and resources have been focused, because I do not want war to be the health of the state of Indiana.
— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson is sick of government interference.
Israeli airstrike destroys Gaza training base
Ma’an – 29/12/2011
GAZA CITY – Israeli war planes bombed central and northern Gaza Strip early Thursday, with no injuries reported.
Israeli forces struck a training site of Islamic Jihad armed wing the Al-Quds Brigades in Al-Zahra district of central Gaza, flattening the compound and damaging nearby houses.
Another airstrike hit a location in the northern Gaza Strip.
A statement from the Israeli army said it hit a “terror activity site” and “terror tunnels.”
“The targeting of these sites was in response to the firing of rockets at Israel on Wednesday,” the statement said.
Rockets fired by Gaza militant groups have hit southern Israel in recent days, without causing injuries or damage.
An Israeli airstrike on the Gaza Strip on Tuesday killed one person and wounded ten others, as the coastal enclave commemorated the third anniversary of Israel’s large-scale ground invasion of the coastal strip.
On Wednesday, an Israeli tank fired an artillery shell which landed in an open area in the north of Gaza, without causing damage or injuries.
Israel launched an unprecedented three week war on the Gaza Strip on Dec. 27, 2008 which killed nearly 1,400 Palestinians were killed in the military assault, including over 300 children. The majority of those killed were civilians and over 5,000 people were wounded.
Hamas vowed on Tuesday that it would not be intimidated by Israel’s threats to launch a new invasion, as Israel’s army chief called Operation Cast Lead an “excellent” operation and said any repeat attack must be “swift and painful.”
Israeli war ministry’s budget rises after approved by Knesset
Palestine Information Center – 29/12/2011
NAZARETH — The Knesset committees of finance and security approved the Israeli government’s decision to raise the budget of the war ministry on Wednesday, although some Israeli officials called earlier for slashing it.
The official Hebrew radio said these two Knesset committees sanctioned the financial plan of the Israeli war ministry by about one billion and 600 million shekels.
Knesset member and head of its security committee Shaul Mofaz had expressed his opposition to this budget increase and demanded cutting it, but Benny Gantz, the Israeli army’s chief of staff, warned the Israeli government of cutting the budget because this would affect the military readiness of the Israeli army.
U.S. Closing Down Its Logistics Through Pakistan
Moon of Alabama | December 29, 2011
After the U.S. November 26 attack on a Pakistani border post that killed 26 Pakistani soldiers the logistic line from Karachi into Afghanistan was shut down by Pakistani authorities.
It was expected that the line would be reopened after a few weeks. But as the U.S. is not forthcoming with the apology Pakistan demands and even partly blames Pakistan for the incident despite the fact that all the miscommunication that led to it happened on the U.S. site, the chances to reopen the line have dwindled.
Consequently the U.S. is now pulling out the equipment and wares currently stuck on the transport route in Pakistan, as reported by the Express Tribune:
“It has been a month since the Nato attack which resulted in the port and border closures with no resolution in sight, the US government intends to have all import unit cargo that is currently staged at different Container Holding Yards (CHYs) moved back to Karachi port or the nearest CHY to the port. Once we receive approval, all unit cargo will be exported out of Pakistan,” wrote Anita Rice, Chief of the OCCA SWA (595th Trans Brigade, NSA Bahrain) in an email to all ‘concerned’ persons.
…
According to sources, US cargo, stranded in Pakistan, is worth millions of dollars and US authorities have serious concerns over the safety of the cargo as it includes hammer [sic] vehicles, dumpers, anti-aircraft guns, special carriers of anti-aircraft guns, vehicles specially built to jam communications, cranes and sophisticated weapons.“We will compile information for submission to Pakistan customs for amendment for cargo export,” Rice said in her email, providing US Lieutenant Colonel Jerome Heath’s contact number for further assistance.
It will take several months to get all the stuff stuck in Pakistan back on ships and even longer to reroute it through the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) into Afghanistan.
It will also cost a lot of money.
Flying equipment into Afghanistan costs about $14,000 per (short) ton.
A 20″ container coming through the NDN through Russia and Uzbekistan costs about $12,000, double the amount it costs for the same container to be routed through Pakistan.
Additionally there is concern about the ability of the rail network in Uzbekistan, recently hit by a mysterious explosion, to carry the additional load of what so far has come through Pakistan as well as corruption and the U.S. denial of the abysmal human rights record of the Karimov regime.
Aside from that, current NDN agreements do not allow for the transport of weapons and ammunition through the NDN and it is, so far, a one way route that can not be used for the ongoing retreat from Afghanistan.
Obama’s decision to not apologize for the border incident, taken out of fear of attacks from the domestic political right, will turn out to be very expensive and will hinder future U.S. operations in Afghanistan for quite some time.
But the political impact of completely closing down the logistic line through Pakistan might even be bigger. It removes another point of common interest the U.S. and Pakistan have had.
If the U.S. is, as it seems now possible, trying to get into direct negotiations with the Taliban in Qatar that exclude Pakistani interests from the future of Afghanistan the war there is unlikely to end anytime soon.
