Sunday, December 30, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
Astronomers Monitor Asteroid to Pass Near Mars
50 meters (164 feet) wide that is expected to cross Mars' orbital path early next year. Observations provided by the astronomers and analyzed by 's Near-Earth Object Office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in . , indicate the object may pass within 30,000 miles of Mars at about 6 a.m. EST (3 a.m. PST) on Jan. 30, 2008.- Astronomers funded by are monitoring the trajectory of an asteroid estimated to be
"Right now asteroid 2007 WD5 is about half-way between Earth and Mars and closing the distance at a speed of about 27,900 miles per hour," said Don Yeomans, manager of the Near Earth Object Office at JPL. "Over the next five weeks, we hope to gather more information from observatories so we can further refine the asteroid's trajectory."
detects and tracks asteroids and comets passing close to Earth. The Near Earth Object Observation Program, commonly called "Spaceguard," plots the orbits of these objects to determine if any could be potentially hazardous to our planet.
Asteroid 2007 WD5 was first discovered on Nov. 20, 2007, by the NASA-funded Catalina Sky Survey and put on a "watch list" because its orbit passes near Earth. Further observations from both the NASA-funded Spacewatch at Kitt Peak , Ariz. , and the Magdalena Ridge Observatory in gave scientists enough data to determine that the asteroid was not a danger to Earth, but could potentially impact Mars. This makes it a member of an interesting class of small objects that are both near Earth objects and "Mars crossers."
Because of current uncertainties about the asteroid's exact orbit, there is a 1-in-75 chance of 2007 WD5 impacting Mars. If this unlikely event were to occur, it would be somewhere within a broad swath across the planet north of where the Opportunity rover is located.
"We estimate such impacts occur on Mars every thousand years or so," said Steve Chesley, a scientist at JPL. "If 2007 WD5 were to thump Mars on Jan. 30, we calculate it would hit at about 30,000 miles per hour and might create a crater more than half-a-mile wide." The Mars Rover Opportunity is exploring a crater approximately this size right now.
Such a collision could release about three megatons of energy. Scientists believe an event of comparable magnitude occurred here on Earth in 1908 in Tunguska,, but no crater was created. The object was disintegrated by Earth's thicker atmosphere before it hit the ground, although the air blast devastated a large area of unpopulated forest.
An audio interview/podcast regarding 2007 WD5 is available at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/podcast/mars-asteroid-20071221/
A videofile related to this story is available on http://www.nasa.gov/ntv.and the Web. For information and schedules, visit:
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
What a news TIME magazine named this week MAN OF THE YEAR Im really surprise cuz last year Hugo Chavez won that honor by getting most of the internet vote but the magazine decide to give the honor to the people and internet if I well remember
Well Putin received the honor cuz he made RUSSIA again a key player in this world, made the country 2nd oil producer behind Saudi Arabia, and most of all gave a rebirth to the dying country left behind by the corrupt Yeltsin
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
this past december 9th marks the beggining of a new era without IMF and World Bank, for Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay and Argentina, this a new era that those South america countries would help each other with own money and would not ask again for more "expert" advice of IMF that made so great damage to the region.
Venezuela took out more of his money from IMF so that means another crisis for that US Organization that has lost a lot of revenues cuz most of the countries pay their lends
Monday, December 10, 2007
this would be the first time in history that an Empire FALLS because economic problems!!!
Some other big economic group has a mighty GNP bigger than USA, UE no no BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) how about that??
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
VIDEO of Reuters
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
take a look on the article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.
The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.
The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”
Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.
But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”
The estimate does not say when American intelligence agencies learned that the weapons program had been halted, but a statement issued by Donald Kerr, the principal director of national intelligence, said the document was being made public “since our understanding of Iran’s capabilities has changed.”
Rather than painting Iran as a rogue, irrational nation determined to join the club of nations with the bomb, the estimate states Iran’s “decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs.” The administration called new attention to the threat posed by Iran earlier this year when President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.
Yet at the same time officials were airing these dire warnings about the Iranian threat, analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency were secretly concluding that Iran’s nuclear weapons work halted years ago and that international pressure on the Islamic regime in Tehran was working.
Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, portrayed the assessment as “directly challenging some of this administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran.” He said he hoped the administration “appropriately adjusts its rhetoric and policy,” and called for a “a diplomatic surge necessary to effectively address the challenges posed by Iran.”
But the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, quickly issued a statement describing the N.I.E. as containing positive news rather than reflecting intelligence mistakes.
“It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Hadley said. “It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”
“The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the administration has been trying to do,” Mr. Hadley said.
The new report comes out just over five years after a deeply flawed N.I.E. concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program — an estimate that led to congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, although most of the report’s conclusions turned out to be wrong.
Intelligence officials said that the specter of the botched 2002 N.I.E. hung over their deliberations over the Iran assessment, leading them to treat the document with particular caution.
“We felt that we needed to scrub all the assessments and sources to make sure we weren’t misleading ourselves,” said one senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Past week Bush signed an agreement with Maliki to formalize the permanent occupation of Irak, of course to protect OIL and US interest, ppl mmm doesnt care its all about OIL!!!!
An Occupation Army would never win against local population. Lisa Simpsons War are based on lies. Sun tzu
Soldiers dead at Irak + u have 2 add Blackwater mercenaries and other deaths that Pentagon doesnt count.
President Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki signed an agreement Monday paving the way for the long-term occupation of the Middle Eastern country and its transformation into a semi-colonial protectorate of the US.
The “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship” outlines plans for the establishment of permanent US military bases in Iraq to suppress internal opposition to the US-installed regime and protect US economic and political interests throughout the region. It also provides for preferential treatment for US energy conglomerates and investors to exploit Iraq’s newly opened up oil resources.
The new agreement—signed during a secret videoconference between Bush and Maliki—without the slightest democratic pretenses in each country—exposes the repeated lies, peddled by the White House ever since the April 2003 invasion, that the US had no intention to set up permanent military bases or carry out an long-term occupation of Iraq.
The declaration calls for the current United Nations mandate—which has provided a legal fig leaf for the US occupation—to be extended one more year and thereafter to be replaced by a bilateral economic and security pact between the two countries.
The full details of the pact—including the size of the US occupying force—are to be worked out by July 31, 2008 and are scheduled to take effect in early 2009, i.e., after Bush leaves office. Although the agreement will commit US troops to remain in the country for years, if not decades, the White House insists that it will not rise to the level of a formal treaty, requiring congressional approval.
Maliki signed the declaration without any serious parliamentary debate. Sunni Arab and Shia politicians immediately denounced it, saying the agreement would lead to “US interference for years to come.” The Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni group, said the Iraqi signatories of the declaration would be looked on as “collaborators with the occupier.”
Under the proposed formula, Iraqi officials told the Associated Press, Iraqi forces will take charge of internal security, and US troops will relocate to bases outside the cities. They foresee at least 50,000 American troops remaining in the country indefinitely. The White House says the bilateral agreement will not contain timetables for the withdrawal of troops.
White House deputy national security advisor Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute said the declaration signaled that the US “will protect our interests in Iraq, alongside our Iraqi partners, and that we consider Iraq a key strategic partner, able to increasingly contribute to regional stability.”
US forces will protect the interests of American energy companies once the country’s vast oil wealth—the second largest proven oil reserves in the world—are opened up to international and in particular US investment. This is only possible by intensifying US military repression of the Iraqi people and crushing popular opposition to the US-installed regime and the American occupation.
At the same time permanent US bases are being set up to project American military power throughout the Middle East and provide US forces increased capabilities to launch attacks against Iran, Syria and other countries.
Debka-Net-Weekly, a web site associated with Israeli military intelligence, said the US has plans to remove 100,000 troops by the end of 2009, leaving behind 50,000-70,000 in 20 huge land and air bases. “These bases,” the site wrote, “are under construction; they will be secured by broad swathes of space, fortified with weaponry and remote-controlled electronic devices.” US troops will be responsible for protecting Iraq’s borders from “external threats,” Debka reported, adding, “US air strength and special forces in these bases will have rapid deployment capabilities for reaching points outside Iraq at need.”
The US launched the Iraq war to establish unchallenged domination of the Middle East and fend off the growing inroads into the energy-rich region by its economic rivals, such as China and Russia. The economic advantages of occupying Iraq are spelled out in one of the principles outlined in the new US-Iraqi declaration, which calls for “facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investment to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq.”
Another declares US support for aiding Iraq’s “transition to a market economy,” which includes opening up the nationalized oil industry to the control of ExxonMobil, Chevron and other US energy conglomerates.
Earlier this month the Iraqi government, guided by American legal advisors, cancelled a contract originally signed by the Saddam Hussein government in 1997 with the Russian company Lukoil, for the development of the vast oil field in Iraq’s southern desert. The West Qurna fields—with estimated reserves of 11 billion barrels, the equivalent of the worldwide proven oil reserves of ExxonMobil, America’s largest oil company—will now be opened to international, and in particular, US bidders.
Vladimir Tikhomirov, the chief economist at the Russian bank UralSib, told the New York Times, “From the Russian government perspective, Iraq is seen as occupied and its administration directed by Washington, particularly when it comes to oil. The Russians see the cancellation of the contract in Iraq as part of the US drive to keep control over the major oil fields there.”
The declaration of principles is loaded with Orwellian language aimed at concealing its nakedly imperialist aims. The US—which launched an illegal war and occupation that have resulted in the virtual destruction of an entire society and the deaths of more than one million Iraqis—declares its commitment to “deter foreign aggression.” All those who oppose the occupation are “terrorists” and “outlaws” who must be defeated and “uprooted” from Iraq.
The real face of the American military presence was shown this week when US troops fired on vehicles at roadblocks in Baghdad and north of the Iraqi capital, killing at least five people, including three women and a child, in two separate shootings.
The commitment to a long-term occupation hardly provoked a murmur from the Democratic Party. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized Bush for planning to leave office with a “US army tied down in Iraq and stretched to the breaking point, with no clear exit strategy.”
While opposing Bush for failing to efficiently wage the war the Democrats defend the same economic interests as the Republicans and have made it clear they will not end the occupation if they take control of the White House in 2009. In fact the military scenario envisaged in the deal signed by Bush corresponds to the bipartisan plans being worked out between the Bush administration and the Democrats for a “post-surge Iraq.”
Leading Democrats, such as presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have argued for the reduction of US forces and their redeployment from the cities to “over-the-horizon” positions where they could strike opponents of the US-backed regime, as well as Iran. Clinton in particular has argued that pulling US troops out of the cities would reduce US casualties, thereby making the long-term occupation of Iraq more politically palatable in the US, while still keeping forces available to defend US economic interests.
Monday, November 26, 2007
On November 21, President Putin told Strategic Nuclear Force to be ready against any Agression against the Motherland, he remarked how NATO is getting closer to his borders everyday against agreements that were signed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He said "We cannot allow ourselves to remain indifferent to the obvious 'muscle-flexing',"
Thursday, November 22, 2007
What a week for the stock market. On Wednesday the market took a 360 point nosedive followed, two days later, by a 220 point belly-flop. By the time it was over, the trading pits looked more like a sausage-packing plant than the world's financial epicenter. After the bell, downcast traders could be seen tiptoeing through the carnage on their way to the local liquor store to load up on "Stoly" and boxes of Franzia---anything that would steady their nerves and put the week behind them.
Everyone could see it coming; the train-wreck. It was mostly carry-over from the night before when Asian stocks took a thumping on reports of slower growth in the US and growing troubles in the credit markets. That put the first domino in motion. Fed chief Bernanke's announcement that the economy will face "a sharp slowdown from the housing market's contraction" and an "inflationary surge from sharply higher oil prices and the weaker dollar", didn't help either. His remarks triggered a blow-off in the currency markets while equities were frog-marched to the chopping-block.
The Shanghai market took the worst hit dropping nearly 5% before the trading-day ended. Taiwan and Hong Kong followed suit, sliding 3.9% and 3.2% respectively. Share prices in Japan fell 2%. The next morning, Wall Street crashed. It was a massacre.
This is a bear market now. The last bull was dragged from the Street on Friday with a harpoon in its chest.
The subprime contagion has now spread beyond the US and Europe to markets in the Far East. No one is fooled by Bernanke's sunny predictions that the economy will bounce back next year with a strong showing in the first quarter. That's baloney and everyone knows it. The economy has stumbled down the elevator shaft and is just waiting to hit bottom. Consumer confidence is flagging, housing is falling, foreign capital is fleeing, and the greenback is one flush away from the sewage-treatment plant. Bernanke's soothing bromides are meaningless.
"I don't see any significant change in the broad holdings of dollars around the world. Dollars remain the dominant reserve asset and I expect that to continue to be the case," Bernanke said to the Congressional Economic Committee.
Really? So why is the greenback plummeting if people aren't dumping it, Ben? What an absurd comment. The dollar has lost 63% against the euro and dropped to record lows against a basket of world currencies. Foreign central banks and investors have been ditching it as fast as they can before it loses more value. The dollar's tumble has been the most dazzling currency-flameout in modern times and Bernanke is acting like he's still asleep at the switch. It's madness.
The greenback is getting clobbered by the Fed's "low-interest" snake oil and the gargantuan current account deficit. If Bernanke clips rates again to bail out the stock market, the dollar will slip into irreversible respiratory failure. Food and oil prices will shoot to the moon overnight and the remains of the greenback will be carted off to the nearest boneyard.
September's trade deficit was another blow to the waning dollar. The Census Bureau reported on Friday that the deficit clocked in at $56.5 billion. That's $684 billion per annum! Bush has been crowing about the "shrinking deficit", but the numbers are nothing to boast about. We're still borrowing more than we're producing. We're still living beyond our means. The lower numbers just reflect the decline in home construction which is import-intensive. The fact is, we're addicted to debt-fueled consumption and forgotten that, eventually, the trillions that we've borrowed from foreign creditors, will have to be repaid. If the dollar is replaced as the world's reserve currency, then we'll have to pay back $9 trillion of outstanding debt. We might as well hang out the "Foreclosed" sign right now and get fitted for Chinese workers-suits.
This is from Bloomberg News:
"As the dollar tumbles, concern is growing that its weakness may augur the end of the U.S. currency's 62-year reign as the world's specie of choice for trade, financial transactions and central-bank reserves..The dollar owes its position as the world's premier international currency to its status as a haven during times of turmoil, the absence of a suitable rival, weak domestic demand in other countries and plain old inertia. Geopolitics also play a role."
Nonsense. Who believes this rubbish? The dollar is the so-called "international currency" because the Federal Reserve and its well-heeled patrons are the directors of the US-Euro-Japan banking cabal which is at the center of the global Fiat money scam. There's nothing more to it than that. Notice the recent "unilateral" clamp-down on Iran by the US-led banking syndicate. The action was initiated without UN approval for the simple reason that the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and thousands of NGOs are just more of the Central Banks' prime properties. Don't expect the father to ask the child for permission to punish one of his errant children. The banks are the one's who really call the shots and--behind the curtain of feigned respectability---they are the driving force behind the endless wars.
The Fed's plan to "devalue" our way to prosperity appears to have hit a few ill-placed speed-bumps. The stock market is hanging by a thread and consumer confidence is at its lowest ebb since the start of the Iraq War. The falling dollar is expected to put a damper on Christmas spending and knock equities for a loop. That can't be good for economy--especially when 72% of GDP comes from consumer spending.
We're already begun to see the telltale signs that the consumer is loosing ground and about to slip into a debt-induced coma.
According to data from the University of Michigan:
"Consumer confidence reached its lowest level in more than two years this month amid concerns over record-high oil prices, continued trouble in the housing market and higher inflationAlthough consumer attitudes deteriorated across the board, the substantial drop in expectations contributed heavily to the sizeable decline in the overall index."
The average working stiff doesn't put any stock in Bernanke's palavering. He sees what's going on for himself every time he pulls up to the gas pump or goes the grocery store. He doesn't need the University of Michigan to tell him he's getting screwed; he knows it! The economy is sinking, inflation is skyrocketing, and the country is adrift. Every farthing in the public till has been shoveled into a black hole in the Middle East. Does Bernanke really think working people don't know that? Everyone knows that. Everyone knows the economy is on life-support; just like everyone knows the country is collapsing from mismanagement. Even the flag-waving, war-mongering maniacs on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page are starting to shutter from the avalanche of bad news. They see what's going on and they're scared---scared sh**less.
Unfortunately, the sudden shift in consumer sentiment is the hurting retailers who depend on Christmas to carry them through the year. We've already seen the sluggishness in housing and auto sales. Now it's showing up in retail. Abercrombie, American Eagle, Ann Taylor, Chicos, Dillards, The Gap and Nordstrom are all reporting sagging sales. Walmart, Lowes and the other big-box stores are lowering their projections as well. It's going to be a lean Christmas.
The poor US consumer is finally maxed-out and can't tap into his home equity anymore for presto-credit. He's mortgaged "to the hilt" and he's already run up 6 or 7 credit cards to their limit. In fact, credit card debt is a growing concern for the banks, too.
The commercial banks are the victims' of their own success. After years of seductive promotions and saturation mailings the credit card industry is at its zenith leaving consumers with a staggering bill of nearly $1 trillion. ($915 billion) More and more customers are finding themselves unable to make even minimum payments on their balances and defaults are piling up at a record pace. This is the next phase of the subprime fiasco and it has the potential to be nearly as disruptive as the housing meltdown. The problem is complex, too. After all, most credit card debt in the last 6 years has been "securitized" and passed on to investors in the secondary market. (pension funds, hedge funds etc.) That means we can expect more tremors in the stock market as corporate earnings go south after credit card-backed bonds are downgraded. It's just more of the same "structured finance" chicanery; debt stacked on debt, until the whole edifice caves in.
It's looking more and more like Reagan's "shining city on the hill" was erected on a mountain of toxic debt. It's a wonder it hasn't sunk already.
The country is headed for recession and there's nothing that Bernanke can do to stop it. The only question is whether we'll be facing a colossal economy-busting meltdown like 1929 or a milder 5 or 6-year slump. That's up to the Federal Reserve. If the Fed chief decides to pit himself against the falling markets by slashing rates and destroying the currency; then we are likely to be digging-out for years. But if Bernanke steps aside, and lets the chips fall where they may, then the pace of recovery will be quicker.
Whatever choice he makes, there's no avoiding the inevitable downturn. The hammer is poised to strike the anvil. The stock market will fall, the over-extended banks and hedge funds will collapse, and the country will go into a protracted, economic tailspin. That much is certain. Economic fundamentals can only be shrugged off for so long. When markets correct it's like a tidal-surge that sweeps-away the deadwood of bad bets and over-levered investments leaving behind a broad-expanse of empty beach.
Recession is a normal part of the business cycle. It can't be avoided. The economy needs to unwind so debts can get written off and businesses can retool for the future. The upcoming recession is shaping up to be worse than its predecessors---a real doozey.
The damage caused by the Fed's excessive credit has been considerable. It'll take years to mop up the red ink and set the house aright. The markets are in a shambles, investors have been battered and confidence is gone.
Structured finance has been an unmitigated disaster. It needs to be scrapped. We need a new financial system for a new epoch; a system that is heavily regulated and supervised to discourage the crooks and con-artists; a system that it maintains its essential link to the real, productive underlying economy and avoids the galaxy of complex derivatives, "securitized" liabilities, and opaque debt-instruments that have brought on the present crisis; a system that responds to the needs of working people and takes into consideration the looming problems of environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and climate change; a system that reinvests in communities, education and health-care rather than fattening the bottom-line of corporate racketeers and brandy-drooling elites. It's time to remove the rotten scaffolding and rebuild the whole contraption brick by brick.The system is broken. Maybe Greenspan did us all a favor by blowing it up with his "low interest" dynamite. Good riddance.
Monday, November 19, 2007
The Pentagon has been concealing the true number of American casualties in the Iraq War. The real number exceeds 15,000 and CBS News can prove it.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
This past month has been a pretty hard time for US Dollar, it has lost a lot of value against gold and EURO, and that is why the Oil is so expensive these days nearly $95, People already stop buying US bonds usually they were buying $97 billions and now only $19 billions WHAT A DEFICIT!!! this is a very very bad situation for a country that get use to live beyond they can, and now the situation is getting worse some 6 countries are taking steps to drop Dollar:
Saudi Arabia, closest US oil provider, is taking measure to avoid any recession like in the US so they are not going to cut interest rate, this country has $800 billion on US Bonds if they start selling them it would begin a massive stampede to do the same.
South Korea, they have plans to diversify their invests outside since 2005, but now they are getting ready to shift from Dollar, cuz that currency lot value agains oil, Euro and against their own money, so plans of selling $1 billion in US bonds are very real now, on august 2007 they sold $100 million of US bonds. Asia alone has $2 trillion in US Securities and other invesment instruments.
CHINA, since they decided to drop the peg of Yuan with Dollar and decide that currency would be floating against other currencies, Yuan appreciate agains Dollar, but NUCLEAR OPTION against Dollar is still an option cuz USA want to put some trade sanctions agains them, so they use their huge amount of US bonds and instruments like a bargain chip.
RUSSIA, want to establish an alternative way for trading oil and commodities (not in dollars), since 2005 they decide to put more EUROS on the Money reserves and to put EURO Peg to Ruble.
IRAN, the most likely to abandon US DOLLAR, their first move to ask Japan to pay any Oil exports in euros, and also since 2006 they made the idea of an Oil bourse in their country to trade commodities (oil & Gas) in Euros. In October 2007 85% of their Oil sells where in other currencies (NO MORE DOLLARS)
VENEZUELA, the bad boy of Latin America, they start selling oil to 12 countries in the region in EUROS, also PDVSA invesment are now in Euros only no more Dollar, he stated some argument in OPEC on 2000 to stop using PETRODOLLAR and change to other currencies.
This 6 countries represent a lot of OIL WEALTH (except Korea), they are trying to protect their own interest and economy, so if they start droping US DOLLARS it would be a high impact on US Economy.
Russian Rouble to Attack the U.S.$?
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Before Israel Invasion over Lebanon they drop nearly 1 million of cluster bomb over the country, there is no exact data and some parts of the country is consider now DEAD ZONE cuz there is a lot of cluster bombs unexploded there.
The pretext for destroying Lebanon was to search and recover 2 soldiers kidnapped by HAMAS
watch the video HERE (would open Windows Media Player)_
Friday, November 09, 2007
This month scientist discovered a new planet like Earth on the star 55 Cracri (about 41 light years from Earth), its 45 times bigger than Earth composition like Saturn, its about the same distance from Sun than Earth. But thats not all its has other planets (4), another solar system besides ours
this planets has nearly the same temperature than earth, so that means its can have life!!!
Astronomers discover new planet
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Citigroup is on crisis now, their CEO quit after their earning drop 54% , and now the Bank faces investigation by SEC. Analist Meridth Whitney says that their only way to save the bank is to sell it by parts. In wall Street ppl start calling Citigroup the CITIcorpse. this maybe the beginning of another Enron.
Meredith Whitney: The $360bn analyst
The analyst who sparked pandemonium in global financial markets with a simple note has a colourful history
The words of one woman were enough to knock fragile stock markets into a freefall not seen since the advent of the sub-prime crisis in August, after a pessimistic report on Citigroup's future sparked a chain reaction of panic selling.
The report of Meredith Whitney, a financial services analyst from CIBC World Market, a subsidiary of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, led to about $369 billion (£177 billion) being wiped off the US stock market value by the end of yesterday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average slid more than 360 points, or 2.6 per cent.
In London, the FTSE lost £32 billion, dropping 65 points. Today another £15.5 billion has been lost, bringing the total to £47 billion. Indications are that the FTSE will make some recovery in afternoon trading.
Ms Whitney's report caused Citibank to lose more than $15 billion of market capitalisation, with its stock plunging more than 7 per cent in the first half hour of trading. In her report, Ms Whitney said Citigroup would need to cut its dividend or sell assets to avert what she said was a $30 billion capital shortfall. It was the biggest stumble for Citibank’s shares since September 2002.
“No one had the moxie to put in print what I put in print,” Ms Whitney said.
Ms Whitney, 37, the maven (and expert) of the financial industry, has been steadily accruing influence and audience, and she is frequently quoted in numerous publications, ranging from The New York Times to Business Week, from Forbes to Fortune. She is also a regular business contributor to Fox News, 82.1 per cent owned by The News Corporation, parent company of The Times.
It was when making an appearance on Fox News' Bulls and Bears programme that she met her future husband, John Charles Layfield, a professional wrestler and former World Wrestling Entertainment champion.
Mr Layfield, whose wrestling persona is based on JR Ewing, the oil tycoon from the 1980s television series Dallas, had just written his book Have More Money Now: A Common Sense Approach to Financial Management.
The two immediately clicked over dinner.
Mr Layfield later said of his wife: "She took a country boy like me and kind of refined me. I know what fork to use now at the dinner table, and I drink my beer from a glass."
Prior to her work at CIBC, where she and her team focuses on mid-to-large sized banks as well as corporate financial institutions, Ms Whitney spent four years leading Financial Institutions research at Wachovia Securities. Before that she spent six years covering Specialty Finance at CIBC World Markets (formerly Oppenheimer).
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Here I ask all of my readers to help find ET (aliens) using seti@home Boinc pogram, u would SETI that have been searching for alien signals from the space since 1970's but they dont have enough computers to do the job so they made SETi@home program, u can download it and help them, it would not cost nothing and it only use free computer of ur PC
Friday, November 02, 2007
Another big tension agains Iran persist so if the USA attack them surely barrel can reach $400 dollars!
Thursday, November 01, 2007
After the collapse of USSR Russia is back like a
To FACE USA ABM system on
Another anti ABM weapons RS-24 ICBM (Topol M MIRV version) it can take 10 nuclear warheads its mainly intended to replace SS-19 and SS-18 Satan (world most powerful ICBM in the world). Every warhead can maneuver during reentry and evade ABM.
Also to face and destroy US stealth planes like the RAPTOR, USA is developing 5th generation aircraft call PAK FA (Su-50) its unclear what type of Stealth technology they are going to use (plasma or radar absorbing tech). this plane would replace in the near future Mig-29 and Su-27.
PAK FA Artist conception
Space Weapons yes of course they have been working on that since 1980’s when Reagan proposed (and failed) to make an space ABM, USSR project was called POLYUS or SkifDM an space battle built using space modules ZARYA (used today on ISS), their main weapons was space mines, laser cannon and Stealth technology. This Soviet station was
Another weapon for submarine warfare the SHKVAL (VA-111) WORLD deadlist and fast torpedo of the world, it was development since 1977, USA try to steal it on 1999 but failed, it can reach 200 knots, none of today Navies can stop it, it can reach super speed cuz they manage to create an elliptical bubble that makes supercavity reducing water friction.
This just a small view of the new weapons
R-500 capable of destroying any ABM
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Again USA lost on UN, they condemn the unilateral and illegal embargo over Cuba since 1960, they lost 180 against embargo only 4 votes where with USA (USA of course, Israel, Marshall islands, Palau), USA ppl at UN didnt leave the session after loosing but they said "Cuba's problems derive not from any decision of the United States, but from the embargo on freedom that the Cuban regime has imposed on its own people," he said. because the embargo is a very "good thing" for Cuba!!!! like everything USA do to help preserve Democracy and of course USA Interest!
here is the complete news
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN General Assembly on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly for the 16th year in a row to demand an end to the crippling against , despite Washington's pledge to keep it in place.
By a vote of 184 in favor, it reiterated its "call upon all states to refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures (such as those in the US embargo) in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law."
The 192-member assembly again urged "states that have and continue to apply such laws and measures to take the necessary steps to repeal or invalidate them as soon as possible in accordance with their legal regime."
Like last year, four countries -- the United States,, and -- voted against the resolution and one, Micronesia, abstained.
Cuban Foreign Ministerimmediately hailed the vote as a "splendid victory" coming less than a week after US vowed to keep in place the US sanctions, which were imposed 45 years ago against the communist-ruled island following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion by US-backed Cuban exiles.
"As long as the regime maintains its monopoly over the political and economic life of the Cuban people, the United States will keep the embargo in place," Bush said.
"I think the president's remarks stand," US national security council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Tuesday in reaction to the UN vote.
The margin of support for ending the embargo has grown steadily since 1992 when 59 countries voted in favor of the resolution. The figure was 179 in 2004 and 182 in 2005.
Addressing the Assembly ahead of the vote, Perez Roque said the economic and trade sanctions were having a crippling effect, and estimatedhad suffered losses of "no less than 222 billion dollars," based on the US dollar's current value.
The blockade "has never been applied with as much ferocity as in the past year," he said, noting that Washington even barred US companies from providing Internet services to Cuba and was denying Cuban children access to needed medication.
And he later told AFP that the vote was "the expression of the virtual universal rejection of the policy of blockade and aggression which Bush, like no other US president, has applied toward Cuba."
He said ailing Cuban President"followed the (UN) debate live and was the main architect of this victory because he embodies like no-one else the will of Cubans to be a free people despite the embargo and the aggressions we have suffered."
The 81-year-old Castro has been sidelined from power since he underwent gastrointestinal surgery in July 2006. His brother, 76, is serving as interim president.
Ronald Godard, the US State Department's senior advisor for Latin American affairs, blamed the communist regime for the country's woes.
"Cuba's problems derive not from any decision of the United States, but from the embargo on freedom that the Cuban regime has imposed on its own people," he said.
"We call on the international community to join together in demanding that the Cuban government unconditionally release all political prisoners as the essential step in beginning a process that restores to the Cuban people their basic human rights," he told the assembly.
Several speakers denounced the embargo slapped on Cuba on February 7, 1962 by the US administration under the late.
's UN envoy, Maged Abdelaziz, said the Non-Aligned movement "reiterates its deep concern over the widening of the extra-territorial nature of the embargo against Cuba and rejects the reinforcement of the measures adopted by the US government aimed at tightening the embargo."
's deputy UN ambassador Farukh Amil, speaking on behalf of another grouping of 130 nations, called for greater dialogue and cooperation to "contribute greatly not only toward the removal of tensions, but also promote meaningful exchange and partnership between countries whose destinies are linked by history and geography."
Speaking on behalf of the, Portuguese delegate Jorge de Lemos Godinho said: "we express our rejection of all unilateral measures against Cuba which are contrary to commonly accepted rules of international trade, and repeat our view that the lifting of the would open Cuba's economy to the benefit of the Cuban people."
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
From History Channel
Monday, October 29, 2007
Japan got rid 4% of USA bonds, so is China.
USA borrows nearly $9 billion dollars every year from the world
watch this video WMV format
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Oct. 23, 2007 | There are signs that Blackwater USA, the private security firm that came under intense scrutiny after its employees killed 17 civilians in Iraq in September, is positioning itself for direct involvement in U.S. border security. The company is poised to construct a major new training facility in California, just eight miles from the U.S.-Mexico border. While contracts for U.S. war efforts overseas may no longer be a growth industry for the company, Blackwater executives have lobbied the U.S. government since at least 2005 to help train and even deploy manpower for patrolling America's borders.
Blackwater is planning to build an 824-acre military-style training complex in Potrero, Calif., a rural hamlet 45 miles east of San Diego. The company's proposal, which was approved last December by the Potrero Community Planning Group and has drawn protest from within the Potrero community, will turn a former chicken ranch into "Blackwater West," the company's second-largest facility in the country. It will include a multitude of weapons firing ranges, a tactical driving track, a helipad, a 33,000-square-foot urban simulation training area, an armory for storing guns and ammunition, and dorms and classrooms. And it will be located in the heart one of the most active regions in the United States for illegal border crossings.
While some residents of Potrero have welcomed the plan, others have raised fears about encroachment on protected lands and what they see as an intimidating force of mercenaries coming into their backyard. The specter of Blackwater West and the rising interest in privatizing border security have also alarmed Democratic Rep. Bob Filner, whose congressional district includes Potrero. Filner says he believes it's a good possibility that Blackwater is positioning itself for border security contracts and is opposed to the new complex. "You have to be very wary of mercenary soldiers in a democracy, which is more fragile than people think," Rep. Filner told Salon. "You don't want armies around who will sell out to the highest bidder. We already have vigilantes on the border, the Minutemen, and this would just add to [the problem]," Filner said, referring to the Minuteman Project, a conservative group that has organized civilian posses to assist the U.S. Border Patrol in the past. Filner is backing legislation to block establishment of what he calls "mercenary training centers" anywhere in the U.S. outside of military bases. "The border is a sensitive area," he said, "and if Blackwater operates the way they do in Iraq -- shoot first and ask questions later -- my constituents are at risk."
A spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied there are any specific plans to work directly with Blackwater. And Blackwater officials say the complex would be used only for training active-duty military and law enforcement officials, work for which the company has contracted with the U.S. government.
But statements and lobbying activity by Blackwater officials, and the location for the new complex, strongly suggest plans to get involved in border security, with potential contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, Blackwater enjoys support from powerful Republican congressmen who advocate hard-line border policies, including calls for deploying private agents to beef up the ranks of the U.S. Border Patrol. Lawmakers supporting Blackwater include California Rep. and presidential candidate Duncan Hunter -- who met last year with company officials seeking his advice on the proposal for Blackwater West -- and Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, who is sponsoring a bill to allow private contractors such as Blackwater to help secure U.S. borders.
When questioned at a public hearing with the Potrero planning group on Sept. 13 about Blackwater West, Brian Bonfiglio, a Blackwater spokesman, said, "I don't think there's anyone in this room who wouldn't like to see the border tightened up." Blackwater currently had no contracts to help with border security, Bonfiglio said, but he emphasized that "we would entertain any approach from our government to help secure either border, absolutely." Bonfiglio was responding to questions from Raymond Lutz, a local organizer who opposes the new complex. (Lutz recorded the exchange and posted video of it on Oct. 12 at CitizensOversight.org.) Lutz also asked Bonfiglio if Blackwater West would be used as a base for deployment of Border Patrol agents. "Actually, we've offered it up as a substation to Border Patrol and U.S. Customs right now," Bonfiglio replied. "We'd love to see them there."
Ramon Rivera, a spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Washington, denied Bonfiglio's claim that the agency is entertaining an offer to use Blackwater West as a substation. "I think that's just Blackwater trying to sell themselves," Rivera said.
In fact, Blackwater has been selling itself for direct involvement in border security at least since May 2005, when the company's then president, Gary Jackson, testified before a House subcommittee. Jackson's testimony focused on Blackwater's helping to train U.S. Border Patrol agents and included discussion of contracts theoretically worth $80 million to $200 million, for thousands of personnel. Asked by one lawmaker if his company saw a market opportunity in border security, Jackson replied: "I can put as many men together as you need, trained and on the borders."
The company has turned to powerful allies on Capitol Hill for support, including Hunter, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee and a longtime proponent of tougher border security. Joe Kasper, a spokesman for Hunter, confirmed to Salon that Blackwater officials sought guidance from Hunter on getting Blackwater West approved for Potrero. Hunter met with Blackwater officials in May 2006, at which time Hunter recommended the firm contact Dianne Jacob, the county supervisor responsible for Potrero and one of five supervisors who would vote on countywide approval for Blackwater West. Blackwater officials then met with Jacob in May, and in June the company submitted its proposal to the county, where it now must go through an approval process.
Rep. Filner says Potrero residents have complained to him that Hunter also brought pressure locally for Blackwater West. "People in the area told me he called the landowner [of the proposed site] to urge him to sell [to Blackwater]. I don't know that he did, but it wouldn't surprise me," says Filner. "That's what people in the area are saying." (Hunter has ties to Potrero, which used to be part of his congressional district; after a redestricting in 2001, Potrero became part of Filner's district, which borders Hunter's district.)
Spokesman Kasper denied that Hunter called the landowner, whose identity remains unclear. But Kasper also said that Hunter "supports Blackwater and other private security contractors in Iraq, and he supports the training facility in Potrero."
One specific concern Potrero residents have raised with relation to Blackwater West is the high risk of wildfires in their part of the county -- a danger on display the last two days as Potrero has been ravaged by fire along with other parts of Southern California. Blackwater has in fact pushed as a selling point that the complex would be a "defensible location" during wildfires. But opponents, including Jan Hedlun, the only member of the Potrero Planning Group opposed to Blackwater West, foresee danger rather than a safe haven. As Hedlun wrote in a recent editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune, "residents state they would not flee to a box canyon with one access point and an armory filled with ammunition and/or explosives."
Ever since illegal immigration became a top issue for the Bush administration and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, there have been growing calls for the U.S. to bring private security companies into border enforcement. In September 2006, the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington released a policy paper titled "Better, Faster, and Cheaper Border Security," which urged Congress and the president to beef up forces as fast as possible. "In particular," the report said, "private contractors could play an important role in recruiting and training Border Patrol agents and providing personnel to secure the border." Late last month, one of the report's authors hosted a symposium in Washington for an updated discussion on the topic, for which Rep. Rogers -- a proponent of both Blackwater and DynCorp International, another private security contractor with personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan -- was the keynote speaker.
On June 19 of this year, during a House subcommittee meeting titled "Ensuring We Have Well-Trained Boots on the Ground at the Border," Rep. Christopher Carney, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, acknowledged "it's no secret that CPB [Customs and Border Protection] as a whole lacks the manpower to fulfill its crucial mission." Robert B. Rosenkranz, president of the government services division of DynCorp, presented a plan for putting 1,000 DynCorp employees at the border in 13 months, at a cost of $197 million.
In May 2006, the Bush administration had called for a sharp increase in manpower, at least with the existing federal force. President Bush then signed a bill into law on Oct. 4, 2006, to boost the number of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents on the ground by nearly 50 percent, from approximately 12,300 to approximately 18,300, by the end of 2008.
But even such an ambitious increase would do little to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, says T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents most U.S. Border Patrol agents. Bonner, himself a field agent in east San Diego County, told the House subcommittee in June, "Realistically, there is no magic number of Border Patrol agents required to secure our borders and even if there were, it would certainly be much higher than the 18,000 proposed by the administration."
Scott Borgerson, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who specializes in homeland security, says it makes sense that U.S. companies would try to position themselves to fill gaps in national security with lucrative private-sector solutions. "If I was running a company doing private security, it's definitely what I would do," he says of Blackwater's plan to locate near the border.
In an Oct. 15 article in the Wall Street Journal, Blackwater CEO Erik Prince said that the company now sees the market diminishing for the kind of security work its employees have done in Iraq. He said that going forward the company's focus "is going to be more of a full spectrum," ranging from delivering humanitarian aid to responding to natural disasters. But priorities for the Bush administration, including immigration and border security, could also figure into Blackwater's plans -- as Salon reported recently, the company's skyrocketing revenues during Bush's presidency are accompanied by the firm's close ties with influential Republicans and top Bush officials.
Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said that the notion of Blackwater vying for lucrative border security contracts is "merely speculation," and noted that the location for Blackwater West is close to San Diego's military bases, a major training market for the company. "But hypothetically," Tyrrell added, "if the government came to us and needed assistance with border security, we'd be honored."
Borgerson says there is a role for private contractors in helping keep the United States safe. "But certain jobs belong to trained U.S. government officials -- men and women in uniform who have a flag on their sleeves," says Borgerson, who was a Coast Guard officer for 10 years. "You recite an oath that says you will defend -- not Congress, not the president, not even the people -- but the Constitution. You don't sign that oath when you go to work for Blackwater."
Bonner, of the U.S. Border Patrol, remains skeptical about Blackwater getting involved, and he says others in the upper ranks of the Border Patrol are opposed to private contractors working alongside them. He sees potential problems with both training and patrolling. The much higher pay likely offered to private agents, for example, would threaten an already difficult-to-retain federal force. "It will entice people to jump over to the other side," he says, "especially if they don't have a long-term career in mind." Bonner also says it is crucial to have a single training curriculum, and a single chain of command, to help ensure effective and lawful operations. "This is a bad idea from so many perspectives," he says of potentially privatizing the force.
The issue may be linked to broader problems the U.S. is currently facing with national security. "If we weren't allocating a tremendous amount of our resources in Iraq, we wouldn't have to outsource to companies like Blackwater," Borgerson says. While securing the U.S. borders is an important priority, he adds, "I feel we shouldn't outsource our sovereignty."