Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Broder and Israel’s Goldilocks war against Iran

By Paul Woodward | War in Context | November 1, 2010

What kind of institutional entity do the hacks in Washington constitute such that they can have a “dean”?

When David Broder is referred to as the dean of the Washington press corps, I guess it’s just a complimentary way of saying the old guy. But Broder’s nine years younger than Helen Thomas. How come she never rose to the same stature? Is baldness a requirement?

In spite of his institutional stature, Broder’s mental capacities have in recent years come into question and his op-ed in the Washington Post on Sunday provides yet another occasion to wonder what is going on inside this man’s brain as he pushes for war against Iran.

He writes:

War and peace influence the economy.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran’s ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.

So another war is going to rescue the economy? But just a minute — if war’s such an excellent economic tonic, how come we aren’t already in great shape? A decade of war just hasn’t been quite enough?

It’s easy to mock Broder’s prescription and even to wonder whether he’s lost his grip on reality, but maybe he’s not quite as crazy as he sounds. Read more carefully, this is not actually a call for war — it is a call for the continuously escalating threat of war.

This is indeed the most likely “lesson” that some have drawn from the experience of Iraq: that the best kind of war is the one that has yet to be fought. A war that can be budgeted for, equipped for, and around which politicians can construct their postures of strength, resolution and righteousness. The context is one in which we have been encouraged to think that war is normal. War is in fact so normal that Washington pundits can now present it as a useful economic tool.

Washington’s lead comes from Israel, which has less interest in starting a war with Iran than in promoting the idea that war might be just over the horizon — a kind of Goldilocks war, not too far away and not too close, but just close enough. In this delicately modulated threat of mayhem, Iran itself remains politically and economically boxed in, while issues which merit more urgent attention — namely the intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict — can be shunted to one side.

Two countries so heavily invested in manufacturing the means for engaging in war, actually have less interest in wars being fought than in a war-footing constantly being maintained. The problem is, a war posture can only be maintained for so long and momentum only be built up so much before a turning point is reached: war either then becomes inevitable or a real alternative has to be pursued.

Only through the hubris which metastasizes inside the brains of those trapped inside the Washington bubble, can anyone fail to see that the process of backing Iran into a corner risks the United States becoming trapped by the narrow logic of its own strategy. War is not normal. It is a failure of imagination.

November 1, 2010 Posted by | Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

A Turning Point Quietly Reached

Israel does not want anything that could conceivably be called a genuine peace

By Jeremy Salt – Palestine Chronicle – October 31, 2010

This turning point has arrived quietly, no fanfare or advance warning signifying its importance. After 62 years there is nothing left to talk about with Israel. Finally, all possibilities have been eliminated. Past plans are scattered across the landscape like the whitened bones of dinosaurs, their only purpose to remind us and future generations of what might have been but never was. The last flimsy veil has been pulled away from a ‘peace process’ that was never a peace process in the first place but a different kind of war process. Netanyahu slaps Obama’s face time after time (and Obama does not react). Michael Oren tells the world Israel will decide its borders and noone else. Lieberman tells European Foreign Ministers to mind their own business. When you have solved your own problems come and talk to us, he says, and by the way, Israel is not going to be the Czechoslovakia of 2010, demonstrating that his knowledge of history is as twisted as his understanding of manners, ethics, law and morality. Only this week, Netanyahu paid a special visit to the ‘commandos’ who killed nine civilians on board the Mavi Marmara. They have already been decorated for their bravery but Netanyahu wanted to congratulate them in person. Livni made belligerent statements of her own. Why would Israel not want to settle this problem with a country which over the centuries was a haven for Jews and which was well placed to arbitrate between Israel and the Arab states? Why would it actually go out of its way to antagonise Turkey, and even to rub salt into the wound? The answer would seem to lie at the intersection between folly, stupidity and lunacy. Meir Kahane, whose followers celebrated his genocidal ideas in the streets of Umm al Fahm only the other day, would be dancing with delight at the way things are turning out.

Israel has rejected every opportunity that ever came its way to make peace with the Palestinians, and through them with the broader Arab world. The process did not begin in 1988 or even in 1973 but goes back to Nasser’s approaches in the 1960s. In the past two decades the Arab states have laid out a simple formula for peace – you keep 80 per cent of the land but you return the 20 per cent you took in 1967 and you take the refugee question seriously. The offer was almost insanely and irresponsibly generous, but it was still not enough for Israel. By ignoring or rejecting these open offers, by taking what it wants from the ‘peace process’ and dumping the rest, Israel has repeatedly turned its back on peace. For peace to be durable, viable, all those words used by American presidents and British Prime Ministers, something has to be on offer for both sides, but now nothing is on offer for the Palestinians. Israel is going to do what it wants, take what it wants, and to hell with international law and what anyone else thinks. These are the clear signals coming from the Netanyahu government, backed up on the ground by a feverish acceleration of settlement-building.

There is nowhere left for Mahmud Abbas, Husni Mubarak and the kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan to hide behind, not a rock, a fig leaf or even a blade of grass. If we are not hearing much from any of them these days that is because there is nothing left to say. Obama has gone completely silent on the question of Middle East peace and, except for the occasional pro forma statement about getting the peace process back on track (i.e. giving a corpse mouth-to-mouth resuscitation), so has Hillary Clinton. Obviously, they are focused on the coming congressional elections but they have nothing useful to say either. Israel has driven everyone into a corner. The ‘peace process’ was based on the assumption that sooner or later Israel would come to the party, that when the point was reached where the ‘core issues’ could be discussed Israel would make the necessary ‘concessions’ (i.e. handing back stolen property). But it is not coming to the party. There is no party, except for the settlers and the fascists marching on Umm al Fahm calling ‘death to the terrorists’. They are having a wild old time. The champagne corks are popping everywhere.

Israel claims legitimacy and the ‘right’ to exist. Yet its first act was to drive out the indigenous people of Palestine so that they would have no rights at all, not just the right to vote but the most basic right of all, the right to live in the land where they were born. In other words, Israel is claiming rights which it completely denies to another people. Not only does it do this but it demands that its victims accept that the wrongs committed against them were in fact a ‘right’. This is totally absurd but if the full blown fascists in the Knesset have their way, even the commemoration of the nakba would be criminalised. That the government would actually allow the followers of the genocidal Meir Kahane to flaunt their repulsive doctrines in Umm al Fahm, right amongst the people they want killed or removed, is a measure of the depth of the racism in its ranks.

The life of a state is also based on the harmony of its relationships with those living alongside it and on its willingness to live within the remit of international law. On both of these counts Israel is a miserable failure. In the name of security and defending borders which it refuses to declare, it has spent the last six decades antagonising the Arabs. This has to be regarded as extremely strange behavior for a state which endlessly proclaims its desire to live at peace with its neighbors. In fact, Israel has no ‘neighbors’ in the cozy sense of that word. It has treaty arrangements with Egypt and Jordan, whose rulers do not represent the sentiments of their own people, let alone the feelings of the broader Arab world.

Israel does not want anything that could conceivably be called a genuine peace. For the sake of holding on to its ill-gotten gains, it is prepared to remain a garrison state forever. It is prepared to fight wars and to launch them to destroy anyone who stands in the way of the fulfillment of the Zionist dream/nightmare. Nothing is left for the Palestinians in this situation but to declare that, as the Oslo process succeeded or failed as a package, as it has now not so much failed as been killed off by Israel, all the agreements that were made along the way are null and void. Effectively, they, the Palestinians, and we, the rest of the world, because there is no way that the world can avoid becoming embroiled in the very large crisis that will inevitably arise as the apotheosis of all these smaller crises (small by comparison), we are back to 1948. Blocked from swinging in one direction, the pendulum between war and peace must now swing in the other.

– Jeremy Salt is associate professor in Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. Previously, he taught at Bosporus University in Istanbul and the University of Melbourne in the Departments of Middle Eastern Studies and Political Science. Professor Salt has written many articles on Middle East issues, particularly Palestine, and was a journalist for The Age newspaper when he lived in Melbourne.

November 1, 2010 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | Leave a comment

US allots $100bn to nukes

Press TV – October 30, 2010

Iran has criticized the United States for allocating $100 billion to proliferation of its nuclear weapons, saying it contradicts Washington’s claim of supporting a nuke-free world.

Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations Mohammad Khazaei condemned the US nuclear double standard, saying Washington advocates a nuclear-free world on the one hand, while it continues to develop and modernize its nuclear arsenal on the other.

“The US plan to develop and modernize nuclear weapons … to which a budget of more than one hundred billion dollars is allocated, is in direct contradiction to White House slogans of a nuke-free world,” Khazaei told the UN General Assembly’s Disarmament Committee.

The Iranian envoy also referred to the US nuclear bombardment of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, saying the existence of thousands of nuclear warheads in the arsenals of nuclear countries continues to cast a “shadow of fear” over the world.

The UN General Assembly’s Disarmament Committee in a meeting in New York on Friday discussed a new nuclear disarmament treaty between the United States and Russia.

During the meeting, the member states of the Non- Aligned Movement (NAM), in a statement, criticized the new START pact, citing inadequate measures to counter nuclear threats.

The statement, which was proposed by Iran and read aloud at the meeting, called on the US and Russia to stick to their commitments regarding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on the destruction of all their nuclear weapons.

The US and Russia were also urged to adopt a transparent nuclear policy and to meet their international nuclear verification obligations in order to ensure global denuclearization.

The statement said that the reduction of nuclear weapons was no substitute for their destruction, as the only way to protect the world against a nuclear threat was complete denuclearization.

The NAM members states also voiced deep concern over NATO’s nuclear policies that seek to justify the use of nuclear weapons.

The US and Russia, both signatories to the NPT, are major possessors of nuclear weapons.

The two countries signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) on reduction and limitation of nuclear weapons in 1991.

It was renamed START I after negotiations began on the second START treaty, which became START II or the New START.

The START I treaty expired in December 2009. In April 2010, the New START was signed by the US and Russia.

Under the new treaty, each side within seven years would be barred from deploying more than 1,550 strategic warheads or 700 launchers but neither side would have to eliminate large numbers of weapons to meet the new limits.

Arms control advocates say the treaty does not go far enough in reducing the dangerous weapons on both sides.

The Pentagon’s move to spend billions to rejuvenate its nuclear warheads  runs counter to the White House’s “nuclear free world” motto.

October 30, 2010 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | Leave a comment

The Source of America’s wars, Neocons Zionists

Rys2sense | October 27, 2010

Whose interest are we spending trillions of dollars on wars and bankrupting America for? Certainly not America’s interests.

It’s not a blame Israel chorus (Alex) or some abstract group. It’s facts. The pre-war hype that led to war with Iraq was not generic corporatism. The lies specifically came from a zionist cabal in the DOD.

It wasn’t oil companies faking Niger documents it was Ledeen and Franklin. It wasn’t weapons companies lying about witnessing a transfer of anthrax in a meeting that didn’t even happen, it was Woolsey Barns and Schmit.

It wasn’t security companies lying about WMDs or spying on the US it was AIPAC It was the god damn Israeli moles Perle, Kristol, Fieth, Frum, Abrams, Libby, Wolfowitz, Kagan, Goldberg, and Grossman.

This is not some vague blame game. We have very specific facts as to who did what and it WAS the Israelis and this IS Israel’s war.

October 27, 2010 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

‘I do not support U.S. gov’t war guarantees or military aid to any country’ — John Dennis

By John Dennis | Mondoweiss | October 25, 2010

Over the weekend Mondoweiss ran a post criticizing the Israel-Palestine stance of John Dennis, an antiwar Republican who is challenging Nancy Pelosi from the left in her San Francisco district. John Dennis had this response today:

Matthew Taylor’s blog post referenced statements I made in a debate this past spring. In it, I attempted to make a nuanced point about how to handle U.S.-Israeli relations in the likely event that foreign aid for Israel continues. His blog post misinterpreted my statements and doesn’t represent my record and beliefs.

For the record, I do not support U.S. government foreign aid to any country. I do not support U.S. government war guarantees or guaranteed military support for any country. My read is that the U.S. government does not have the constitutional authority to give foreign aid or military assurances to any country. This works well for me, because I also happen to think that aid and/or assurances are not prudent for all parties involved.

I am a committed non-interventionist running for federal office. The Constitution and the writings of the founders, I think, support a non-interventionist foreign policy. I am also an advocate of peaceful solutions to conflict and disagreement. I would like for nothing more than the people in the Middle East to live in peace.

However, I cannot run for elective federal office and concurrently be a political activist. Should I now, or in the future, become an elected official, I would best serve my district and my oath to the Constitution by staying committed to non-interventionist principles.

I appreciate all fair attempts to keep anyone running for office on his/her toes. I welcome the chance from Mondoweiss to clarify.

I am also willing to debate my opponent, Nancy Pelosi, on this matter. I am happy to take any questions on this or any other matter from the media or the constituents of the 8th Congressional District of California.

In this case, as much as I appreciate the blogger’s challenge, a fairer, more interesting and far less provocative discussion might have come by simply asking me to clarify my statements.

In liberty,

John

October 25, 2010 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

MARINE MAMMALS AND OTHER SEA LIFE TO BE DECIMATED

Navy Proposed Warfare Training Range

TIME IS RUNNING OUT! The Final Environmental Impact Report was released September 10, 2010, and according to the Navy’s project contact person Kimberly Kler, all comments will continue to be forwarded to the decision-making body until the Record of Decision is filed, which is expected in late October.

GET INVOLVED: Contact the Navy’s representative Kimberley Kler at 360–396–0927, and demand an extension for additional comments on the several thousand page document. You can write to your local newspapers to get more media attention, contact your congressional representatives*, board of supervisors, and other elected officials and make the case that these operations are unnecessary and would cause an undetermined amount of harm to marine life on our coast.

Click here to sign the Petition to Stop the Navy

By Rosalind Peterson | NewsWithViews.com | August 11, 2009

The United States Navy will be decimating millions of marine mammals and other aquatic life, each year, for the next five years, under their Warfare Testing Range Complex Expansions in the Atlantic, Pacific, and the Gulf of Mexico. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS under NOAA), has already approved the “taking” of marine mammals in more than a dozen Navy Range Warfare Testing Complexes (6), and is preparing to issue another permit for 11.7 millions marine mammals (32 Separate Species), to be decimated along the Northern, California, Oregon and Washington areas of the Pacific Ocean (7).

U.S. Department of Commerce – NOAA (NMFS) Definition: “TAKE” Defined under the MMPA as “harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect.” Defined under the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Definition: Incidental Taking: An unintentional, but not unexpected taking (12).

The total number of marine mammals that will be decimated in the Atlantic, Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico for the next five years is unknown. […]

Earlier this year, June 8th through June 16, 2009, a delegation from Connecticut and California spent time walking the halls of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. We left petitions, color fliers, and information about saving our marine mammals, requested a postponement and U.S. Congressional Hearings. Ninety-nine senate offices were visited and 2/3 of offices in the U.S. House of Representatives. The silent response from our elected officials regarding these two requests has been zero…one U.S. Congressman even stated that citizens would be “laughed out of the halls of the U.S. Congress for suggesting that we protect our marine mammals”. Corporate paid “Lobbyists”, who hand out money by the $Millions, on the other hand, are always accepted at hearings, give testimony, and are welcomed in the halls of Congress…apparently the voices of citizens of the United States are not given the same status.

These virtually unregulated Navy Warfare Testing Programs already approved are now taking a toll on marine mammals, the fishing and ocean tourism industries, and on all aquatic life. Many U.S. Senators and Congressmen are ignoring these issues by pretending that they don’t exist even though they have been informed in advance of these programs.

A brief history of the Navy Warfare Testing Program is needed to understand the full implications of this Pentagon/Navy Warfare Testing Program. In 2004, the Bush Administration signed a bill weakening U.S. Environmental Laws (1), with regard to the U.S. Navy. And then in 2008, President Bush signed an executive order allowing the Navy to be exempt from environmental laws which protects endangered and threatened species (2-4). The Navy Southern California Complex was the first one to benefit from this executive order. Soon other Navy Range Complexes were obtaining exemptions from the NMFS with little or no oversight or significant mitigation measures (5).

A partial listing of known Navy Range Complexes (6), shows the amazing scope of the disaster. According to U.S. Congressman Waxman in a letter dated March 12, 2009: “…The Navy estimates that its sonar training activities will “take” marine mammals more than 11.7 million times over the course of a five-year permit…The sonar exercises at issue would take place off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, Hawaii, Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico – affecting literally every coastal state. In many regions, the Navy plans to increase the number of training exercises or expand the areas in which they may occur. Of particular concern are biologically sensitive marine habitats off our coasts, such as National Marine Sanctuary and other breeding habitats…In all, the Navy anticipates that its sonar exercises will “take” marine mammals more than 2.3 million times per year, or 11.7 million times over the course of a 5-year permit….” This statement was made in response to public inquiries regarding the Navy Northwest Training Range schedule for Northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

KTVU Oakland San Francisco Television Station is the only television station to investigate and air a story about this U.S. Navy program (13), on May 18, 2009. It took a great deal of courage, in the face of the fact that no other major television networks would carry this story. A few courageous radio stations are also helping to get the word out to the public.

Published in the United States Federal Register on March 11, 2009:

The United States Navy published an application, as an addendum to their expanded Warfare Testing program, in the U.S. Federal Register, dated March 11, 2009. This application from the Navy “…requests authorization to take individuals of 32 species of marine mammals during upcoming Navy Warfare testing and training to be conducted in the NWTR areas (off the Pacific coasts of Washington, Oregon, and northern California) over the course of 5 years…”

The Navy Warfare Testing Program will “…utilize mid- and high frequency active sonar sources and explosive detonations. These sonar and explosive sources will be utilized during Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) Tracking Exercises, Mine Avoidance Training, Extended Echo Ranging and Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) events, Missile Exercises, Gunnery Exercises, Bombing Exercises, Sinking Exercises, and Mine Warfare Training…” (More listed in Navy E.I.S.)

The “taking” of marine mammals negatively impacts the entire ecology of our oceans and the life in them which feeds large numbers of people and other species around the world. It should be noted that the list of toxic chemicals that the Navy proposes to use is a long one as noted in the Navy E.I.S. Depleted uranium, red and white phosphorus, mercury, lead, and a whole host of chemicals known to be toxic not only to man, but to marine life, are being served up on the “Navy Warfare Chemical Menu” that will contaminate our air, water, and soil.

On May 28, 2009, U.S. Congressman Mike Thompson from California, in a Press Release to NOAA, made the following statements which could be directed toward any ocean Navy testing range:

“…I am concerned about the United States Navy’s ability to properly review the environmental impacts of proposed enhancements in its Northwest Training Range Complex (NWTRC)… I am particularly concerned that NOAA’s existing mitigation measures may not be best suited for the protected marine mammals and endangered salmonids present in the Pacific Northwest… I am also concerned about proposed changes to current levels of activity in the NWTRC that focus on training for new aircraft and ship classes and physical enhancements to the training range. The Navy’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) acknowledges that these changes, particularly those related to its increased use of mid-frequency sonar, are likely to have measurable impacts on 32 protected marine mammal species known to inhabit the NWTRC…”

Congressman Thompson continues:

“…As the Navy moves forward with plans to train on new weapons systems, it is essential that NOAA identifies the environmental impacts of these new aircraft, ships and submarines – and their accompanying mitigation measures – specifically with reference to the productive ocean habitats and species that define the Pacific Coast… I am not aware of any specific elements included in the evaluation and am concerned that the review will be inadequate to address the Navy’s EIS with respect to protection of Pacific Coast ocean ecosystems.

NOAA’s comprehensive review is particularly important given that the Navy has estimated shipboard visual monitoring for marine mammals – the most commonly employed sonar mitigation measure – to be effective only 9% of the time. It is important that NOAA take immediate steps to validate its comprehensive review of mitigation measures. Specifically, I request that you provide my office with an outline of the comprehensive review process and answers to the following questions:

1. What mitigation measures will be reviewed during NOAA’s process?
2. What data will NOAA use to identify those mitigation measures best able to protect marine species?
3. How will your agency’s recommendations target specific species, habitats or training activities of concern?
4. How will NOAA’s recommendations address sonar impacts to species other than marine mammals?
5. How will NOAA or the Navy establish performance standards to ensure that recommended mitigation measures are functioning as intended?…”

The public should also be informed of any information received by Congressman Thompson’s office. In addition, there are a few more questions which need to be answered:

1. What are the synergistic and cumulative effects of all the permits that have been issued in the last two years to Naval Range Complex requests?

2. Bomb blasts and toxic chemicals are also being tested by the Navy and NOAA reviews are not including information on the Navy Hazardous Waste and Toxic Chemicals sections of the Navy E.I.S., such as bioaccumulation of chemicals in the food chain, death from exposure to toxic chemicals and bomb blasts.

3. The Navy will also be conducting classified future warfare testing. Since the public is not to be informed of those tests, chemicals being used, electromagnetic weapons systems, and other air or land based tests, who is protecting sea life, human health, water, soil, and air from pollution and other experimental tests?

4. Human health from airborne pollutants, toxic debris, and shoreline contamination from toxic chemicals should also be considered in the NMFS evaluation. The protection of cruise ships, fishermen, ocean tourists, U.S. Coastguard personnel, and the public who swim in the ocean should also be considered in their evaluations. This is not just a marine mammal issue.

It is now time for all of us to weigh in with regard to these warfare programs which will devastate our marine mammals, pollute our air and water, and have negative impacts on human health. We should have U.S. Congressional Hearings and a postponement of these programs until such time as the public can be informed about these issues.

For more information contact: Rosalind Peterson (707) 485-7520 Or, E-mail: info@californiaskwatch.com
Website: californiaskywatch.com
Website: agriculturedefensecoalition.org

Additional Information:

1- Bill Signed into Law by President Bush Summary. 108th Congress H.R. 1588, 2004
2- Associate Press January 18, 2009 – “…President Bush’s decision to exempt the Navy from an environmental law so it can continue using high-power sonar in its training off Southern California _ a practice they say harms whales and other marine mammals…”
3- Los Angeles January 16, 2009- Associated Press President Bush Executive Order Undermining Environmental Laws.
4- U.S. Department of Defense News Release January 16, 2009 Navy Warfare Testing Southern California Range Complex-Use of Sonar.
5- No Significant Mitigation Measures for all of the Navy Range Complexes Listing on this U.S. Map.
6- Partial Listing of known Navy + Air Force Range Complexes:
NOAA Listing (NMFS) August 9, 2009
A – Northwest Training Range Complex – California, Washington, Idaho, Oregon
B – Southern California Training Range Complex, and here
C – Cherry Point Training Range Complex and here
D – U.S. Air Force Eglin Gulf Test+Training Range EGTTR Strike Weapons Tests 2004-5 Years
E – Hawaii Training Range Complex and here
F – Jacksonville, Florida Navy Complex Training Range E.I.S. – Marine Mammal Disaster 2008
G – Virginia Capes EIS/OEIS and see here and here
H – Gulf of Mexico Range Complex EIS/OEIS and Map
I – Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training. See This and This
J – Mariana Islands Range Complex EIS/OEIS
K – NSWC Panama City Division: EIS/OEIS
L – NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Complex EIS/OEIS
M – Navy Undersea Warfare Training Range Complex. Also see this
7- California, Washington, Idaho, Oregon Decision Pending
8- Navy Cherry Point Range Complex, Table of Contents Environmental Impact Statement – Finalized April 23, 2009, Weapons Systems Descriptions – Note Section on Red and White Phosphorus Hazards, 2003 GAO Report Navy
9- Public Comment Deadline NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service August 12, 2009, Information here for how to file your protest and comments, 2009
10- California, Oregon, Washington & Idaho Navy Environmental Impact Statement
11- NOAA “Take” Requests and Permit Authorization-Note Military & Other Types of Organizations
12- NOAA Glossary of Terms – 2009 Definition: Incidental Taking: An unintentional, but not unexpected taking. More Terms, and
13- KTVU Channel 2 Investigation U.S. Navy Warfare Testing Program May 18, 2009
14- President Obama Restored Species Act Consultation-U.S. Department of Commerce & Interior

© 2009 – Rosalind Peterson

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

 

In 1995, Rosalind, now retired, became a certified California United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency Agriculture Crop Loss Adjustor working in more than ten counties throughout California. Rosalind has a BA degree from Sonoma State University in Environmental Studies & Planning (ENSP), with emphasis on using solar power, photosynthesis, agriculture, and crop production.

 

Between 1989 and 1993 Rosalind worked as an Agricultural Technologist for the Mendocino County Department of Agriculture. After leaving Mendocino County she took a position with the USDA Farm Service Agency as a Program Assistant in Mendocino, Sonoma, and the Salinas County Offices, where she worked until becoming certified as a crop loss adjustor for the State.

E-Mail: info@californiaskywatch.com

October 23, 2010 Posted by | Environmentalism, Militarism | Leave a comment

Ten Questions for Tea Partiers

Ralph Nader – Oct 22, 2010

Here are ten Questions for Tea Partiers that they want or do not want to answer. I say it this way because people who call themselves Tea Partiers do not all have the same view of politics, government, Big Business or the Constitution. Their opinions range from pure Libertarian to actively furthering the privileges of plutocracy. Their income and occupational background vary as well, though most seem to be middle-income and up.

My guess is that most Tea Partiers come from the conservative wing of the Republican Party who are fed up with both the corporate Republicans like Bush and Cheney, as well as the Democrats like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

With the above in mind, the following questions can serve to go beyond abstractions and generalizations of indignation and get to some more specific responses.

1. Can you be against Big Government and not press for reductions in the vast military budgets, fraught with bureaucratic and large contractors’ waste, fraud and abuse? Military spending now takes up half of the federal government’s operating budgets. The libertarian Cato Institute believes that to cut deficits, we have to also cut the defense budget.

2. Can you believe in the free market and not condemn hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare-bailouts, subsidies, handouts, and giveaways?

3. Can you want to preserve the legitimate sovereignty of our country and not reject the trade agreements known as NAFTA and GATT (The World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland) that scholars have described as the greatest surrender of local, state and national sovereignty in our history?

4. Can you be for law and order and not support a bigger and faster crackdown on the corporate crime wave, that needs more prosecutors and larger enforcement budgets to stop the stealing of taxpayers and consumer dollars so widely reported in the Wall Street Journal and Business Week? Law enforcement officials estimate that for every dollar for prosecution, seventeen to twenty dollars are returned.

5. Can you be against invasions of privacy by government and business without rejecting the provisions of the Patriot Act that leave you defenseless to constant unlawful snooping, appropriation of personal information and even search of your home without notification until 72 hours later?

6. Can you be against regulation of serious medical malpractice (over 100,000 lives lost a year, according to a study by Harvard physicians), unsafe drugs that have serious side effects or cause the very injury/illness they were sold to prevent, motor vehicles with defective brakes, tires and throttles, contaminated food from China, Mexico and domestic processors?

7. Can you keep calling for Freedom and yet tolerate control of your credit and other economic rights by hidden and arbitrary credit ratings and credit scores? What Freedom do you have when you have to sign industry-wide fine print one-sided “contracts” with your banks, insurance companies, car dealers, and credit card companies? Many of these contracts even block your Constitutional access to the courthouse.

8. Can you be for a new, clean system of politics and elections and still accept the Republican and Democratic Two Party dictatorship that is propped up by complex state laws, frivolous litigation and harassment to exclude from the ballot third parties and independent candidates who want reform, accountability, and stronger voices for the voters?

9. If you want a return to our Constitution—its principles of limited and separation of power and its emphasis on “We the People” in its preamble—can you still support Washington’s wars that have not been declared by Congress (Article I Section 8) or giving corporations equal rights with humans plus special privileges and immunities. The word “corporation” or “company” never appears in the Constitution. How can you support eminent domain powers given by governments to corporations over homeowners, or massive week-end bailouts by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department of businesses, even reckless foreign banks, without receiving the authority and the appropriations from the Congress, as the Constitution requires?

10. You want less taxation and lower deficits. How can you succeed unless you stop big corporations from escaping their fair share of taxes by manipulating foreign jurisdictions against our tax laws, for example, or by letting trillions of dollars of speculation on Wall Street go without any sales tax, while you pay six, seven or eight percent sales tax on the necessities you buy in stores?

Let’s hear from you Tea Partiers. Meanwhile, see the work of video-journalist, Steve Ference, who has interviewed and given voice to those among you in his new paperback “Voices of the Tea Party” published by Lulu.com on July 4, 2010. Contact VoicesoftheTeaParty@gmail.com.

October 22, 2010 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Militarism | Leave a comment

New Report on Uranium Weapons published by UN Secretary General

Ahead of the forthcoming vote in the UN General Assembly, the UN Secretary General has published a second report on uranium weapons. The report compiles responses from countries and UN agencies to a request in the 2008 General Assembly resolution.

19 October 2010 – International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons

In contrast to the previous report, more countries appear to accept that uranium weapons are a matter of concern, and several would support specific international restrictions on their use.

Belgium mentioned their domestic ban, and the more recent law banning financial investment in uranium weapons, and also signalled that it is willing to discuss legislation with other states at the international level. Panama’s report calls for the use of uranium to be restricted to civilian purposes and Lithuania stated its support for a moratorium on the use of uranium weapons.

Burundi recognised the efforts of ICBUW, called for states that voted against previous resolutions to submit evidence supporting their position, and stated that it would support a ban on uranium weapons. Ireland and Japan both welcomed the involvement of civil society in the issue. Norway’s report mentions their funding of research by ICBUW and their ongoing willingness to work with international partners to establish the extent of the health risks.

Some states only wished to express concern. New Zealand’s report mentions that peacekeepers in affected areas are given more stringent health monitoring and
Germany stated its hope that previous resolutions would help to establish clarity about the effects of DU on human health.

The Czech Republic did wish to express any particular view on the issue, and the report of the Netherlands mentioned a long-standing preoccupation – their concerns with the mention of ‘potential harmful effects’ in previous resolutions, rather than ‘possible harmful effects’. By contrast Mexico, while taking the view that the public health risk from uranium weapons is minimal, highlighted the concerns of affected populations, and called for the use of radioactive materials to be restricted to peaceful purposes.

Jordan submitted a detailed report on the physiological risks of depleted uranium, and there was support for ICBUW’s calls for transparency and technical assistance for affected countries. Cuba pointed out that the use of uranium in weapons is in violation of article XX of the IAEA statute, and called for transparency and technical assistance from user states. Mauritius spoke of the environmental and health effects of uranium weapons use, and the fact that few countries have the expertise and resources to carry out decontamination.

As regards reports from international agencies, the position of the IAEA is largely unchanged, though its report does point out that the work by international agencies in affected areas (several years afterwards in most cases) assessed the risks at the time of the work, rather than at the time uranium weapons were used. Similarly the WHO referred to their earlier positions, despite having attracted a lot of criticism for failing to include important information. Their report also stated that they were currently reviewing more recent data – a process which was also mentioned in their 2008 report, but still seems to be incomplete.

The report of UNEP is stronger, and mentions ongoing uncertainties about the environmental effects of DU in the environment, particularly in groundwater, and reiterates their support for a precautionary approach. A more detailed discussion of the positions of international agencies will be produced shortly by the ICBUW science team.

The wide margin of votes cast in favour of General Assembly resolution 63/54 clearly reaffirmed the broad and growing concern of the international community over the danger to human health and the environment from the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium – Cuba

Jordan does not possess any arms or ammunition of which depleted uranium is a component and is of the view that the use of such weapons pose grave risks to human beings, all living things and the environment – Jordan

[Panama] believes that laws of war exist which prohibit the use of deadly and inhumane weapons away from the battlefield, or the use of weapons of war whose effects continue once a conflict has ended – Panama

Given that it is both radioactive and toxic, depleted uranium has long-term health effects not only on personnel in combat operations, but also on civilians, flora, fauna and the environment. Furthermore, the decontamination of soil is a costly exercise, and not all countries have the necessary expertise and resources to carry out such a process – Mauritius

October 20, 2010 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | Leave a comment

The Evil of Madeleine Albright

“Could you have one of our U-2s shot down?”

By Gary Leup – October 18, 2010

Madeleine Albright is infamous for her reply to the question posed by 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl about the sanctions against Iraq in May 1996.

“We have heard that a half million children have died,” stated Stahl. “I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

“I think this is a very hard choice,” replied Albright, “but the price–we think the price is worth it.”

Albright, who served as Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001, had a cruel disregard for the lives of Iraqis, Serbs, and others. But she apparently had a callous attitude towards the lives of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen too. In his new memoir, General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001, writes about a White House breakfast in late 1997. (The account is cited by Justin Elliott in Salon.)

Early on in my days as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we had small, weekly White House breakfasts in National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s office that included me, Sandy, Bill Cohen (Secretary of Defense), Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State), George Tenet (head of the CIA), Leon Firth (VP chief of staff for security), Bill Richardson (ambassador to the U.N.), and a few other senior administration officials. These were informal sessions where we would gather around Berger’s table and talk about concerns over coffee and breakfast served by the White House dining facility. It was a comfortable setting that encouraged brainstorming of potential options on a variety of issues of the day.

During that time we had U-2 aircraft on reconnaissance sorties over Iraq. These planes were designed to fly at extremely high speeds and altitudes (over seventy thousand feet) both for pilot safety and to avoid detection.

At one of my very first breakfasts, while Berger and Cohen were engaged in a sidebar discussion down at one end of the table and Tenet and Richardson were preoccupied in another, one of the Cabinet members present leaned over to me and said, “Hugh, I know I shouldn’t even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event — something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough — and slow enough — so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?”

The hair on the back of my neck bristled, my teeth clenched, and my fists tightened. I was so mad I was about to explode. I looked across the table, thinking about the pilot in the U-2 and responded, “Of course we can …” which prompted a big smile on the official’s face.

“You can?” was the excited reply.

“Why, of course we can,” I countered. “Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go.”

The official reeled back and immediately the smile disappeared. “I knew I should not have asked that….”

“No, you should not have,” I strongly agreed, still shocked at the disrespect and sheer audacity of the question. “Remember, there is one of our great Americans flying that U-2, and you are asking me to intentionally send him or her to their death for an opportunity to kick Saddam. The last time I checked, we don’t operate like that here in America.”

Imagine that! A Cabinet official suggesting a deliberate provocation endangering a military pilot’s life in order to justify a war: “…but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event — something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world.” Is this mere amoral pragmatism? Machiavellian? It is in any case evil.

(I’m reminded of how the key neocon text “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” authored by Paul Wolfowitz for the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) “thinktank” in Sept. 2000, states that the “process of transformation” to the kind of super-militarized aggressive state the neocons hoped for “will be a long one absent some catastrophic event like a new Pearl Harbor.” And as the Deputy Secretary of Defense he warned of another Pearl Harbor in his speech at West Point in June 2001. After 9-11, widely compared in the media to the Pearl Harbor attack of 1941, he immediately set about preparations for war with Iraq.)

On January 31, 2003 President George W. Bush in a meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair seriously proposed provoking Saddam to shoot down a U.S. aircraft. According to notes taken by Blair advisor David Manning (the accuracy of which has never been challenged), Bush suggested “flying U-2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted with UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach” of UN resolutions. Maybe then the UN, which had refused to endorse the plan to attack Iraq and was sceptical about the justifications given by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, would endorse war. (Perhaps the military brass opposed the plan, which was never carried out.)

At the Clinton White House breakfast described by Gen. Shelton, Berger, Cohen, Tenet and Richardson were involved in separate conversations. The other cabinet members were Robert E. Rubin (Treasury), Janet Reno (Attorney General), Bruce Babbit (Interior), Dan Glickman (Agriculture), Mickey Kantor (Commerce), Alexis Herman (Labor), Donna E. Shalala (Health and Human Services), Andrew M. Cuomo (Housing and Urban Development), Rodney Slater (Transportation), Richard W. Riley (Education), Jesse Brown (Veteran’s Affairs), Federico F. Pena (Energy), and Albright.

Out the 14 members of the Cabinet, there were four women. The fact that Shelton deliberately avoids indicating the gender of his interlocutor may hint that it was one of them. It is hard to believe that Attorney General Reno would suggest sacrificing an airman to the head of the Joint Chiefs at a White House breakfast. Or the Secretary of Labor, or Secretary of Health and Human Services. It’s hard to believe anyone on the above list would so–except Albright.

Albright in her memoirs expresses regret for her “it was worth it” statement in the 1996 interview. And she told Newsweek in 2006, “I’m afraid that Iraq is going to turn out to be the greatest disaster in American foreign policy—worse than Vietnam.” But she bears partial responsibility for the December 1998 bombing of Iraq (“Operation Desert Fox”), a prelude to the 2003 invasion. She helped produce the disaster.

And she helped produce disaster in the former Yugoslavia. As violence rose in the Serbian province of Kosovo, between the Kosovo Liberation Army and security forces, she (and Cohen) deliberately exaggerated the Kosovar Albanian death toll and demanded the U.S. right to intervene. She arranged the de facto alliance with the KLA, earlier labelled “terrorist” by U.S. officials. In March 1999 at the Rambouillet talks between Serbia and the Kosovar rebels, along with the U.S., its European allies and Russia, the U.S. demanded that the whole of Serbia (and other states within what was left of Yugoslavia) submit to virtual occupation by NATO. Yugoslavia had proudly remained outside the Warsaw Pact and had prided itself on participation in the Non-Aligned Movement. No government in Belgrade could have complied with Albright’s demands.

The so-called Rambouillet Agreement was rejected outright by the Serbs as well as their Russian allies. But Albright immediately stated, “We accept the agreement”–as though there was any agreement. The bullying was conducted in such a smug fashion that the French Foreign minister accused the U.S. of becoming a hyperpuissance–not a mere superpower but a “hyperpower.”

John Pilger wrote, “Anyone scrutinizing the Rambouillet document is left with little doubt that the excuses given for the subsequent bombing were fabricated. The peace negotiations were stage managed and the Serbs were told: surrender and be occupied, or don’t surrender and be destroyed.”

This was indeed Albright’s plan (and that of Bill Clinton, egged on by Hillary, who has confessed, “I urged him to bomb”), resulting in the deployment of NATO to bomb a European capital for the first time since 1945, killing at least 500 civilians (Human Rights Watch) and maybe ten times that number.

A Republican official later told a think tank that a certain “top official” had told him: ” We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get.” Don’t we see a pattern here?

Throughout the last decade the neoconservatives have been the leading warmongers. But they have no monopoly on imperialist arrogance, contempt for truth and indifference to human life. Madeleine Albright is proof of that.

Gary Leupp is a Professor of History, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion at Tufts University, and author of numerous works on Japanese history.

October 18, 2010 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, War Crimes | Leave a comment

THE REAL STRATEGIC CHALLENGE THAT TURKEY AND IRAN POSE TO ISRAEL

By Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett| New America Foundation | June 3rd, 2010
**For the photo above: David Ignatius (left), the moderator of this panel at last year’s Davos World Economic Forum, tries to stop Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey (center) from speaking. Mr. Erdogan later left the stage to protest comments by President Shimon Peres of Israel (right).**

As the interlinked dramas of Israel’s attack on Turkish civilian ships on the high seas and the Obama Administration’s push for a new Iran sanctions resolution in the Security Council play out, some in the American foreign policy establishment are beginning to realize that the Middle East—and America’s place in it—are changing in profound ways.

Turkey’s deepening engagement in the region is an extremely important catalyst for change.  Of course, this is not a new or suddenly breaking news story.  Turkey’s refusal to allow U.S. forces to invade Iraq from Turkish territory in 2003—not long after Erdoğan’s AKP had come to power–should have been a wake-up call. At the time, though, Turkey’s decision was dismissed by the Washington establishment with a mix of disbelief and a refusal to appreciate how popular the decision was in Turkey.

After Turkey’s key role, along with Brazil, in brokering the recent nuclear deal with Iran and Erdoğan’s strong reaction to the Israeli attack on Turkish-flagged vessels, the U.S. foreign policy establishment is now compelled, by force of events, to recognize that something important is afoot.  In this regard, we were struck by David Ignatius’ most recent column in the Washington Post, “Flotilla raid offers Israel a learning opportunity.” He writes,

“By attacking the relief flotilla, Israel picked a fight with Turkey, a more dangerous foe than Hamas. The quarrel has been brewing for the past several years, and it’s a huge strategic change in the Middle East. Once Israel’s most important regional ally, Turkey now seeks to challenge Israel’s hegemony as the local superpower. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a Muslim populist with a charismatic message: We won’t let Israel push us around. Where Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is often a buffoon, Erdoğan is a genuinely tough if erratic rival.”

Ignatius underestimates Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic’s challenge to Israel. But, to his credit, puts his finger on the most important strategic implication of Erdoğan’s challenge—it is fundamentally a challenge to Israel’s sense of unfettered hegemony over the region.

In explaining why Israel decided to attack Turkish ships headed for Gaza, Ignatius writes, with blazing clarity, “The answer is that over many years, Israel has become accustomed to unchallenged freedom of military action in the Middle East.”  That is absolutely correct, and Israel is determined to preserve this freedom of action, whatever the cost—and to persuade craven American politicians and the more gullible parts of the American public that both vital U.S. interests and Israel’s very survival are at stake in preserving it, even when that is manifestly not the case.

We have previously made a similar argument about what is at stake for Israel in the disposition of the Iranian nuclear issue, see here. The Islamic Republic’s nuclear program is hardly an “existential threat” to Israel. But, a nuclear-capable Iran might, at the margins, begin to impose some limits on Israel’s absolute freedom to use military force unilaterally, wherever it wants, and for whatever purpose it favors.

The Israeli argument against Iran’s nuclear development—like its argument against Turkey’s pique over having Turkish vessels attacked on the high seas, its argument that settlements in occupied territory are completely legal, and its argument that blockading a civilian population in Gaza is also completely legal—is not based on rational analysis of actual physical threats. All of these arguments are directed towards the preservation of Israel’s regional hegemony, embodied in its unchallenged freedom of military action in the Middle East.

From this perspective, Iran and Turkey pose very similar “threats” to Israel. Iran’s re-emergence as a powerful regional player (with its principal regional foes, Iraq and Afghanistan, neutered by U.S. invasions) with the potential for a nuclear weapons “option” could effectively check Israel’s ability to use force unilaterally whenever and wherever it chooses. And, Turkey’s challenge to the siege of Gaza by Israel (and, let’s be fair, Egypt, too) could, if successful, have a similar effect.

October 17, 2010 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

The Israeli Experience – World’s biggest militaristic projects for youth

Als3ai – October 10, 2010

October 17, 2010 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »