New World Order (alex Jones)

Watch this video of Alex Jones, interview by Russia Today and a very nice Russian reporter ;)

DOA sinking USA beyond limits

This weekend I found a very very good (I know I tell that everytime) article of Chalmers Johnson I was thinking the Dollar sinking, Awesome USA debt, and High oil prices was the main reason cuz the USA economy is sinking but NO!!!! its all because the high expenditures on DOA (wars, black projects, military aid 2 Israel, etc..) since 1945 USA economy became a WAR ECONOMY they were thinking hey if that work on World War 2 why we dont continue expending more and more on that with the pretext OH We are doing these cuz we need protection against EVIL, yeah sure now DOA is the main receiver of USA BUDGET, BUSH think the same WAR ECONOMY can save the economy NO WAY!, USA throws more and more money in the military than the whole world take a look of the new owner of the budget MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX


READ

Within the next month, the Pentagon will submit its 2009 budget to Congress and it's a fair bet that it will be even larger than the staggering 2008 one. Like the Army and the Marines, the Pentagon itself is overstretched and under strain -- and like the two services, which are expected to add 92,000 new troops over the next five years (at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion per 10,000), the Pentagon's response is never to cut back, but always to expand, always to demand more.

After all, there are those disastrous Afghan and Iraqi wars still eating taxpayer dollars as if there were no tomorrow. Then there's what enthusiasts like to call "the next war" to think about, which means all those big-ticket weapons, all those jets, ships, and armored vehicles for the future. And don't forget the still-popular, Rumsfeld-style "netcentric warfare" systems (robots, drones, communications satellites, and the like), not to speak of the killer space toys being developed; and then there's all that ruined equipment out of Iraq and Afghanistan to be massively replaced -- and all those ruined human beings to take care of.

You'll get the gist of this from a recent editorial in the trade magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology:

"The fact Washington must face is that nearly five years of war have left U.S. forces worse off than they have been in a generation, yes, since Vietnam, and restoring them will take budget-building unlike any in the past."

Even on the rare occasion when -- as in the case of Boeing's C-17 cargo plane -- the Pentagon decides to cancel a project, there's Congress to remember. Contracts and subcontracts for weapons systems, carefully doled out to as many states as possible, mean jobs, and so Congress often balks at such cuts. (Fifty-five House members recently warned the Pentagon of a "strong negative response" if funding for the C-17 is excised from the 2009 budget.) All in all, it adds up to a defense menu for a glutton.

Already, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said that 2009 funding is "largely locked into place." The giant military-industrial combines -- Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon -- have been watching their stocks rise in otherwise treacherous times. They are hopeful. As Ronald Sugar, Northrop CEO, put it: "A great global power like the United States needs a great navy and a great navy needs an adequate number of ships, and they have to be modern and capable" -- and guess which company is the Navy's largest shipbuilder?

There should be nothing surprising in all this, especially for those of us who have read Chalmers Johnson's Nemesis, The Last Days of the American Republic, the final volume of his Blowback Trilogy. Published in 2007, it is already a classic on what imperial overstretch means for the rest of us. The paperback of Nemesis is officially out today, just as global stock markets tumble. It is simply a must-read (and if you've already read it, then get a copy for a friend). In the meantime, hunker in for Johnson's latest magisterial account of how the mightiest guns the Pentagon can muster threaten to sink our own country. (For those interested, click here to view a clip from a new film, "Chalmers Johnson on American Hegemony," in Cinema Libre Studios' Speaking Freely series in which he discusses military Keynesianism and imperial bankruptcy.) Tom

Going Bankrupt

Why the Debt Crisis Is Now the Greatest Threat to the American Republic
By Chalmers Johnson

The military adventurers of the Bush administration have much in common with the corporate leaders of the defunct energy company Enron. Both groups of men thought that they were the "smartest guys in the room," the title of Alex Gibney's prize-winning film on what went wrong at Enron. The neoconservatives in the White House and the Pentagon outsmarted themselves. They failed even to address the problem of how to finance their schemes of imperialist wars and global domination.

As a result, going into 2008, the United States finds itself in the anomalous position of being unable to pay for its own elevated living standards or its wasteful, overly large military establishment. Its government no longer even attempts to reduce the ruinous expenses of maintaining huge standing armies, replacing the equipment that seven years of wars have destroyed or worn out, or preparing for a war in outer space against unknown adversaries. Instead, the Bush administration puts off these costs for future generations to pay -- or repudiate. This utter fiscal irresponsibility has been disguised through many manipulative financial schemes (such as causing poorer countries to lend us unprecedented sums of money), but the time of reckoning is fast approaching.

There are three broad aspects to our debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on "defense" projects that bear no relationship to the national security of the United States. Simultaneously, we are keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segments of the American population at strikingly low levels.

Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our manufacturing base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures -- so-called "military Keynesianism," which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. By military Keynesianism, I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.

Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of our country. These are what economists call "opportunity costs," things not done because we spent our money on something else. Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly. We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens and neglected our responsibilities as the world's number one polluter. Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs -- an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing. Let me discuss each of these.

The Current Fiscal Disaster

It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military. The Department of Defense's planned expenditures for fiscal year 2008 are larger than all other nations' military budgets combined. The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defense budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. Defense-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The United States has become the largest single salesman of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. Leaving out of account President Bush's two on-going wars, defense spending has doubled since the mid-1990s. The defense budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since World War II.

Before we try to break down and analyze this gargantuan sum, there is one important caveat. Figures on defense spending are notoriously unreliable. The numbers released by the Congressional Reference Service and the Congressional Budget Office do not agree with each other. Robert Higgs, senior fellow for political economy at the Independent Institute, says: "A well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon's (always well publicized) basic budget total and double it." Even a cursory reading of newspaper articles about the Department of Defense will turn up major differences in statistics about its expenses. Some 30-40% of the defense budget is "black," meaning that these sections contain hidden expenditures for classified projects. There is no possible way to know what they include or whether their total amounts are accurate.

There are many reasons for this budgetary sleight-of-hand -- including a desire for secrecy on the part of the president, the secretary of defense, and the military-industrial complex -- but the chief one is that members of Congress, who profit enormously from defense jobs and pork-barrel projects in their districts, have a political interest in supporting the Department of Defense. In 1996, in an attempt to bring accounting standards within the executive branch somewhat closer to those of the civilian economy, Congress passed the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. It required all federal agencies to hire outside auditors to review their books and release the results to the public. Neither the Department of Defense, nor the Department of Homeland Security has ever complied. Congress has complained, but not penalized either department for ignoring the law. The result is that all numbers released by the Pentagon should be regarded as suspect.

In discussing the fiscal 2008 defense budget, as released to the press on February 7, 2007, I have been guided by two experienced and reliable analysts: William D. Hartung of the New America Foundation's Arms and Security Initiative and Fred Kaplan, defense correspondent for Slate.org. They agree that the Department of Defense requested $481.4 billion for salaries, operations (except in Iraq and Afghanistan), and equipment. They also agree on a figure of $141.7 billion for the "supplemental" budget to fight the "global war on terrorism" -- that is, the two on-going wars that the general public may think are actually covered by the basic Pentagon budget. The Department of Defense also asked for an extra $93.4 billion to pay for hitherto unmentioned war costs in the remainder of 2007 and, most creatively, an additional "allowance" (a new term in defense budget documents) of $50 billion to be charged to fiscal year 2009. This comes to a total spending request by the Department of Defense of $766.5 billion.

But there is much more. In an attempt to disguise the true size of the American military empire, the government has long hidden major military-related expenditures in departments other than Defense. For example, $23.4 billion for the Department of Energy goes toward developing and maintaining nuclear warheads; and $25.3 billion in the Department of State budget is spent on foreign military assistance (primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt, and Pakistan). Another $1.03 billion outside the official Department of Defense budget is now needed for recruitment and reenlistment incentives for the overstretched U.S. military itself, up from a mere $174 million in 2003, the year the war in Iraq began. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently gets at least $75.7 billion, 50% of which goes for the long-term care of the grievously injured among the at least 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and another 1,708 in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate. Another $46.4 billion goes to the Department of Homeland Security.

Missing as well from this compilation is $1.9 billion to the Department of Justice for the paramilitary activities of the FBI; $38.5 billion to the Department of the Treasury for the Military Retirement Fund; $7.6 billion for the military-related activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and well over $200 billion in interest for past debt-financed defense outlays. This brings U.S. spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year (2008), conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion.

Military Keynesianism

Such expenditures are not only morally obscene, they are fiscally unsustainable. Many neoconservatives and poorly informed patriotic Americans believe that, even though our defense budget is huge, we can afford it because we are the richest country on Earth. Unfortunately, that statement is no longer true. The world's richest political entity, according to the CIA's "World Factbook," is the European Union. The EU's 2006 GDP (gross domestic product -- all goods and services produced domestically) was estimated to be slightly larger than that of the U.S. However, China's 2006 GDP was only slightly smaller than that of the U.S., and Japan was the world's fourth richest nation.

A more telling comparison that reveals just how much worse we're doing can be found among the "current accounts" of various nations. The current account measures the net trade surplus or deficit of a country plus cross-border payments of interest, royalties, dividends, capital gains, foreign aid, and other income. For example, in order for Japan to manufacture anything, it must import all required raw materials. Even after this incredible expense is met, it still has an $88 billion per year trade surplus with the United States and enjoys the world's second highest current account balance. (China is number one.) The United States, by contrast, is number 163 -- dead last on the list, worse than countries like Australia and the United Kingdom that also have large trade deficits. Its 2006 current account deficit was $811.5 billion; second worst was Spain at $106.4 billion. This is what is unsustainable.

It's not just that our tastes for foreign goods, including imported oil, vastly exceed our ability to pay for them. We are financing them through massive borrowing. On November 7, 2007, the U.S. Treasury announced that the national debt had breached $9 trillion for the first time ever. This was just five weeks after Congress raised the so-called debt ceiling to $9.815 trillion. If you begin in 1789, at the moment the Constitution became the supreme law of the land, the debt accumulated by the federal government did not top $1 trillion until 1981. When George Bush became president in January 2001, it stood at approximately $5.7 trillion. Since then, it has increased by 45%. This huge debt can be largely explained by our defense expenditures in comparison with the rest of the world.

The world's top 10 military spenders and the approximate amounts each country currently budgets for its military establishment are:

1. United States (FY08 budget), $623 billion
2. China (2004), $65 billion
3. Russia, $50 billion
4. France (2005), $45 billion
5. United Kingdom, $42.8 billion
6. Japan (2007), $41.75 billion
7. Germany (2003), $35.1 billion
8. Italy (2003), $28.2 billion
9. South Korea (2003), $21.1 billion
10. India (2005 est.), $19 billion

World total military expenditures (2004 est.), $1,100 billion
World total (minus the United States), $500 billion

Our excessive military expenditures did not occur over just a few short years or simply because of the Bush administration's policies. They have been going on for a very long time in accordance with a superficially plausible ideology and have now become entrenched in our democratic political system where they are starting to wreak havoc. This ideology I call "military Keynesianism" -- the determination to maintain a permanent war economy and to treat military output as an ordinary economic product, even though it makes no contribution to either production or consumption.

This ideology goes back to the first years of the Cold War. During the late 1940s, the U.S. was haunted by economic anxieties. The Great Depression of the 1930s had been overcome only by the war production boom of World War II. With peace and demobilization, there was a pervasive fear that the Depression would return. During 1949, alarmed by the Soviet Union's detonation of an atomic bomb, the looming communist victory in the Chinese civil war, a domestic recession, and the lowering of the Iron Curtain around the USSR's European satellites, the U.S. sought to draft basic strategy for the emerging cold war. The result was the militaristic National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) drafted under the supervision of Paul Nitze, then head of the Policy Planning Staff in the State Department. Dated April 14, 1950, and signed by President Harry S. Truman on September 30, 1950, it laid out the basic public economic policies that the United States pursues to the present day.

In its conclusions, NSC-68 asserted: "One of the most significant lessons of our World War II experience was that the American economy, when it operates at a level approaching full efficiency, can provide enormous resources for purposes other than civilian consumption while simultaneously providing a high standard of living."

With this understanding, American strategists began to build up a massive munitions industry, both to counter the military might of the Soviet Union (which they consistently overstated) and also to maintain full employment as well as ward off a possible return of the Depression. The result was that, under Pentagon leadership, entire new industries were created to manufacture large aircraft, nuclear-powered submarines, nuclear warheads, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and surveillance and communications satellites. This led to what President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address of February 6, 1961: "The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience" -- that is, the military-industrial complex.

By 1990, the value of the weapons, equipment, and factories devoted to the Department of Defense was 83% of the value of all plants and equipment in American manufacturing. From 1947 to 1990, the combined U.S. military budgets amounted to $8.7 trillion. Even though the Soviet Union no longer exists, U.S. reliance on military Keynesianism has, if anything, ratcheted up, thanks to the massive vested interests that have become entrenched around the military establishment. Over time, a commitment to both guns and butter has proven an unstable configuration. Military industries crowd out the civilian economy and lead to severe economic weaknesses. Devotion to military Keynesianism is, in fact, a form of slow economic suicide.

On May 1, 2007, the Center for Economic and Policy Research of Washington, D.C., released a study prepared by the global forecasting company Global Insight on the long-term economic impact of increased military spending. Guided by economist Dean Baker, this research showed that, after an initial demand stimulus, by about the sixth year the effect of increased military spending turns negative. Needless to say, the U.S. economy has had to cope with growing defense spending for more than 60 years. He found that, after 10 years of higher defense spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in a baseline scenario that involved lower defense spending.

Baker concluded:

"It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy. In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment."

These are only some of the many deleterious effects of military Keynesianism.

Hollowing Out the American Economy

It was believed that the U.S. could afford both a massive military establishment and a high standard of living, and that it needed both to maintain full employment. But it did not work out that way. By the 1960s, it was becoming apparent that turning over the nation's largest manufacturing enterprises to the Department of Defense and producing goods without any investment or consumption value was starting to crowd out civilian economic activities. The historian Thomas E. Woods, Jr., observes that, during the 1950s and 1960s, between one-third and two-thirds of all American research talent was siphoned off into the military sector. It is, of course, impossible to know what innovations never appeared as a result of this diversion of resources and brainpower into the service of the military, but it was during the 1960s that we first began to notice Japan was outpacing us in the design and quality of a range of consumer goods, including household electronics and automobiles.

Nuclear weapons furnish a striking illustration of these anomalies. Between the 1940s and 1996, the United States spent at least $5.8 trillion on the development, testing, and construction of nuclear bombs. By 1967, the peak year of its nuclear stockpile, the United States possessed some 32,500 deliverable atomic and hydrogen bombs, none of which, thankfully, was ever used. They perfectly illustrate the Keynesian principle that the government can provide make-work jobs to keep people employed. Nuclear weapons were not just America's secret weapon, but also its secret economic weapon. As of 2006, we still had 9,960 of them. There is today no sane use for them, while the trillions spent on them could have been used to solve the problems of social security and health care, quality education and access to higher education for all, not to speak of the retention of highly skilled jobs within the American economy.

The pioneer in analyzing what has been lost as a result of military Keynesianism was the late Seymour Melman (1917-2004), a professor of industrial engineering and operations research at Columbia University. His 1970 book, Pentagon Capitalism: The Political Economy of War, was a prescient analysis of the unintended consequences of the American preoccupation with its armed forces and their weaponry since the onset of the Cold War. Melman wrote (pp. 2-3):

"From 1946 to 1969, the United States government spent over $1,000 billion on the military, more than half of this under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations -- the period during which the [Pentagon-dominated] state management was established as a formal institution. This sum of staggering size (try to visualize a billion of something) does not express the cost of the military establishment to the nation as a whole. The true cost is measured by what has been foregone, by the accumulated deterioration in many facets of life by the inability to alleviate human wretchedness of long duration."

In an important exegesis on Melman's relevance to the current American economic situation, Thomas Woods writes:

"According to the U.S. Department of Defense, during the four decades from 1947 through 1987 it used (in 1982 dollars) $7.62 trillion in capital resources. In 1985, the Department of Commerce estimated the value of the nation's plant and equipment, and infrastructure, at just over $7.29 trillion. In other words, the amount spent over that period could have doubled the American capital stock or modernized and replaced its existing stock."

The fact that we did not modernize or replace our capital assets is one of the main reasons why, by the turn of the twenty-first century, our manufacturing base had all but evaporated. Machine tools -- an industry on which Melman was an authority -- are a particularly important symptom. In November 1968, a five-year inventory disclosed (p. 186) "that 64 percent of the metalworking machine tools used in U.S. industry were ten years old or older. The age of this industrial equipment (drills, lathes, etc.) marks the United States' machine tool stock as the oldest among all major industrial nations, and it marks the continuation of a deterioration process that began with the end of the Second World War. This deterioration at the base of the industrial system certifies to the continuous debilitating and depleting effect that the military use of capital and research and development talent has had on American industry."

Nothing has been done in the period since 1968 to reverse these trends and it shows today in our massive imports of equipment -- from medical machines like proton accelerators for radiological therapy (made primarily in Belgium, Germany, and Japan) to cars and trucks.

Our short tenure as the world's "lone superpower" has come to an end. As Harvard economics professor Benjamin Friedman has written:

"Again and again it has always been the world's leading lending country that has been the premier country in terms of political influence, diplomatic influence, and cultural influence. It's no accident that we took over the role from the British at the same time that we took over… the job of being the world's leading lending country. Today we are no longer the world's leading lending country. In fact we are now the world's biggest debtor country, and we are continuing to wield influence on the basis of military prowess alone."

Some of the damage done can never be rectified. There are, however, some steps that this country urgently needs to take. These include reversing Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy, beginning to liquidate our global empire of over 800 military bases, cutting from the defense budget all projects that bear no relationship to the national security of the United States, and ceasing to use the defense budget as a Keynesian jobs program. If we do these things we have a chance of squeaking by. If we don't, we face probable national insolvency and a long depression.

Chalmers Johnson is the author of Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, just published in paperback. It is the final volume of his Blowback Trilogy, which also includes Blowback (2000) and The Sorrows of Empire (2004).

[Note: For those interested, click here to view a clip from a new film, "Chalmers Johnson on American Hegemony," in Cinema Libre Studios' Speaking Freely series in which he discusses "military Keynesianism" and imperial bankruptcy. For sources on global military spending, please see: (1) Global Security Organization, "World Wide Military Expenditures" as well as Glenn Greenwald, "The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending"; (2) Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, "Report: China biggest Asian military spender."]

Iran Speedboats Vs US NAVY

Finally all the theather of Iranian Speedboats vs the mighty US Fleet in Persian Gulf came to light they said now that a guy known as Filipino Monkey that has been hacking most of world navies comunications said all that things that we are going to explode u??, US Navy and goverment said that after Iran made public the Real VIDEO of what really happen, it was the perfect pretext that bush needed to destroy Iran the story came in the Guardian UK newspaper

Mischievous 'Filipino Monkey' could have triggered latest US-Iran row

A heckling radio ham known as the Filipino Monkey, who has spent years pestering ships in the Persian Gulf, is being blamed today for sparking a major diplomatic row after American warships almost attacked Iranian patrol boats.

The US navy came within seconds of firing at the Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz on January 6 after hearing threats that the boats were attacking and were about to explode.

Senior navy officials have admitted that the source of the threats, picked up in international waters, was a mystery.

And now the US navy's journal, Navy Times, has claimed that the threats, which were broadcast last week by the Pentagon, are thought to have come from an infamous radio prankster.

It said the Filipino Monkey, who could be more than one person, listens to ship-to-ship radio traffic and then interrupts, usually with abusive insults.

Rick Hoffman, a retired captain, told the paper: "For 25 years, there's been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats. He used to go all night long. The guy is crazy.

"Could it have been a spurious transmission? Absolutely."

An unnamed civilian mariner told the Navy Times: "They come on and say Filipino Monkey in a strange voice. You're standing watch on bridge and all of a sudden it comes over the radio. It's been a joke out there for years."

Last week, the Iranians and the US issued different video versions of what took place.

On the Pentagon's version, a strange voice, in English, can be heard saying "I am coming to you. You will explode in a few minutes." The voice sounds different from one heard earlier in the recording and there is no background noise that would usually be picked up from a speedboat radio.

In the Iranian version, there is no hint of aggressive behaviour.

The Pentagon said it recorded the film and the sound separately and then edited them together to give a "better idea of what is happening".

But Commander Lydia Robertson, a navy spokeswoman, admitted: "We don't know for sure where they [the threats] came from. It could have been a shore station."

The US lodged a formal complaint with Iran over the incident, and the president, George Bush, warned Tehran of "serious consequences" unless it stopped such aggression.

During the 20-minute incident, five Iranian patrol boats swarmed around three US warships and came within 200 metres, puttingthe ships on alert.

The US navy said its gunners came within seconds of firing on the speedboats.

Bush: Iran was and IS a Danger

Bush said that Iran was and Is a Danger to the World, he doesnt care about the report of the 16 "Intelligence" Agencies about they stop their Nuke program back in 2003, he would continue with his agressive politics against Iran, Bush only about what his intelligence said (Cheney)...and also he cares about what God told him like when he invaded Irak

VIDEO of Reuters

Pentagon New Weapons

DDX

DDX firing rail gun

US Military industrial complex is the entity that invest more in new technologies so they can get more effective and intelligent weapons for the future, the most recent idea that change the way they hunt enemies was to put Hellfire missile to UAV Predator.

But the most advance and state of the art weapon is to put weapons on satellites with Rail Guns (Gauss Weapon) that can shoot a 40 pounds projectile at Mach 7, and can travel up to 200 miles and obliterate a target, that projectile would not need explosive they would be effective only with kinetic energy of the impact. The cost of munition of that weapon would be smaller than 1 million Tomahawk.

Satellite weapons would be available maybe beyond 2015.

Also known as RODS Of GOD

RODS of GOD Satellites

These weapon would be also on the Destroyer DDX that would run using Permanent Magnet Motor technology.

Another NEW weapon would be the laser gun that US Air force plan to put on a 747 plane to shoot down enemy missiles.

Future C-130 with Laser Gun

LINKS RELACIONADOS

Airborne laser weapon stays on course - Space.com - MSNBC.com

POPSCI Pentagon new weapon Space-launched darts that strike like meteors

ROD FROM GOD BIG ANALISIS

Rice is worried about Russia Spends

Presupuesto militar del Mundo vs USA (2002)

Condi is on Russia right now, and she said that US is worry about how much Money Russia is spending on new weapons (what is she saying Russian spend nearly 1/4 of 1 trillion USA is spending right now on weapons), she said that Russia spend on weapons should be more available to public news and transparent (yeah sure USA always tell how much money spends on weapons).

Tu-95 Bear H escorted by UK Eurofighter

She also said that is very bad Russia is selling weapons to Iran, Syria and Venezuela, like if USA didnt do the same using the CIA

What a world

have a nice weekend

1200 targets on Iran to Attack

A very interesting article about what would happen with Iran, nearly 1200 targets a 3 days attack using B-2 and F-117, Bush need something to make his presidency to be remember for ever now that most of his "rats" I mean Hawks are going away....

The Sunday Times of London is reporting that the Pentagon has plans for three days of massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran . Last week, Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center , told a meeting of The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal, that the military did not intend to carry out "pinprick strikes" against Iranian nuclear facilities. He said, "They're about taking out the entire Iranian military." Bush has already set the wheels in motion. With Rovian timing, Alberto Gonzales' resignation was sandwiched between two Bush screeds - one aimed at ensuring Congress scares up $50 billion more for the occupation of Iraq , the other designed to scare us into supporting war on Iran . As Gonzales rides off into the sunset, the significant questions are who will take his place and how that choice will facilitate Bush's occupation of Iraq and attack on Iran . One name that's been floated for Bush's third attorney general is Joe Lieberman, the "independent" senator from Connecticut . Lieberman, who advocates the use of military force against Iran , was the only person Bush quoted in his August 28 speech to the American Legion. Bush called Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism" and pledged to "confront Tehran 's murderous activities." Gonzales greased the Bush/Cheney wheels for torturing in violation of the Geneva Conventions, illegally spying on Americans, and purging disloyal Bushies. Similarly, Lieberman would ensure the Justice Department mounts a vigorous defense of a war of aggression against Iran . And Bush would get a two-fer: Connecticut 's Republican governor would appoint a Republican to fill Lieberman's seat, returning control of the Senate to the GOP. A Republican-controlled Senate would direct the agenda, thereby furthering the Bush/Cheney plan. Lieberman is closely affiliated with American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. "AIPAC leverages its power by an alliance with the Christian Right, which has adopted a bizarre ideology of 'Christian Zionism,'" according to University of Michigan professor Juan Cole. "It holds that the sooner the Palestinians are ethnically cleansed, the sooner Christ will come back. Without millions of these Christian Zionist allies," Cole added, "AIPAC would be much less influential and effective." During the 2004 election, a 100% "AIPAC voting record" was Lieberman's litmus test for an acceptable presidential candidate. As the House of Representatives was on the verge of passing a resolution that would've required Bush to consult Congress before attacking Iran, the AIPAC lobby stopped it in its tracks. Bush's WMD-hyping against Iran is déja vu in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Disaster, where he played loose and fast with the truth about Iraq 's alleged WMDs. His statement that a nuclear Iran could put the region "under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust" conjures up his images of a "mushroom cloud" in the hype-up to Iraq . How inconvenient for Bush that the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) just found Iran 's uranium enrichment program is operating well below capacity and is nowhere near producing significant amounts of nuclear fuel. The IAEA report says Iran "has been providing the agency with access to declared nuclear materials, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and facilities." Iran and IAEA agreed on a plan with a step-by-step timetable of cooperation to settle unresolved issues. The agreement said there were "no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran 's past nuclear program and activities," and characterized the accord as "a significant step forward." "This is the first time Iran is ready to discuss all the outstanding issues which triggered the crisis in confidence," said IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei. "I'm clear at this stage you need to give Iran a chance to prove its stated goodwill. Sanctions alone, I know for sure, are not going to lead to a durable solution". In 2003, when Dr. ElBaradei reported there was no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, the White House was not pleased. And as Saddam Hussein became more cooperative with the weapons inspector, Bush became "infuriated," according to Bob Woodward. Bush's vow, "We will confront this danger before it is too late," is the Iran incarnation of his illegal preemptive war doctrine, which he inaugurated in Iraq . In a clear signal he is seeking regime change in Iran , Bush called for "an Iran whose government is accountable to its people, instead of leaders who promote terror and pursue the technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons." Barnett Rubin reported on Global Affairs blog that one of the leading neo-conservative institutions has "instructions" from Dick Cheney's office to "roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this - they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is 'plenty.'" Bush/Cheney created the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) to lead a propaganda campaign to bolster public support for war with Iraq . The White House decided to wait until after Labor Day of 2002 to kick off WHIG's mission. Chief of staff Andrew Card explained, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." Five years later, they're marketing a new and even more dangerous product - war with Iran . British military historian Corelli Barnett says "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III." Our military spending has reached $1 billion every 2-1/2 days and we are borrowing $2-1/2 billion per day. Bush is mortgaging our children’s future security and wealth. We have lost more than 3,700 soldiers in Iraq and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. We have already seen how easily Congress caves in to AIPAC. It's up to the people. As Noam Chomsky said, "The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war [on Iran] is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam." Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of " Cowboy Republic : Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law." Her articles are archived at http://www.marjoriecohn .com/.

Death score of all USA WARS

USA became the country that spend more money on weapons than any country in the world nearly $1 trillion every year, but how about how many deaths the world suffer with the very good invasion they made in the name of PEACE and DEMOCRACY....

North Korea: they kill nearly 1/3 of all population there (1950-53).

Philipines, at the beginning of the century: 1/6 of the population there

NEARLY All Native americans Sioux, cheyenes and others

VIETNAM: the kill 3 millions with bomb raids and the use of chemical weapons, US lost 50,000

IRAQ: 655,000 since the ILLEGAL invasion began, US lost 3500 until now

So that is all the good things USA has made with their weapons to the world

US Death toll in Middle East 3 Millions

I read 3 reports about how many deaths are because USA politics there, since Iran Iraq War 1 Millions, USA funded and gave weapons to Saddam just to attack Iran (his biggest Nemesis in the region), another 1 millions of Iraq people died during the UN sanctions, and now another we are going to reach another 1 million by the end of 2007.

This mean a true GENOCIDE of the Iraq people, but for W. Bush (in his crazy mind) now Irak is living better than under Saddam, I would said they are living a true HELL on Earth.

related Links

American Genocide In The Middle East: Three Million and Counting

600,000 Iraqies Died since USA invasion

MAP: USA bases around the WORLD

Where are all the Bases of the Pentagon here is a nice map to look at, Pentagon is now the biggest owner of land on Earth

US Nukes On Europe

The USA today is the only country with Nuclear weapons (NUKES) deployed outside their country, but they always tell EH we use them as part of NATO rules, during Cold War there were as much as 7000 Strategica B-61 and other types of Nukes on europe, today they are aprox 480, the last Nukes were moved away from Germany.

USA has nukes on Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the UK.

But why US still have Nukes there if the Cold War is over, most of the Europeans want that foreign weapons out of their countries but their goverment seems to agree with all the ORDERS from the Empire.



RELATED LINKS

Blix calls for removal of US nuclear weapons from Europe

US Nukes in Europe: NATO HQ blocked by protest

DOD - Pentagon BUDGET

How much USA spend on its Military Industrial Complex and killing machines...opps I mean democracy and liberty machines

USA Military Budget (millions of dollars)

Department of Defense DOD: $499.400

Deparment of Energy (NUKES): $16.600

State Department (Military aid to foreign countries): $25.300

Veterans and wounded soldiers: $69.800

Internal security : $69.100

Department of Justice (1/3 to FBI): $1.900

Departamento del Tesoro (jubilaciones militares): $38.500

NASA (Spy satellites and launching): $7.600

Interest generated by old Wars from 1916 until today: $206.700

Grand Total of $934,900 mil millons of dollars nearly $1 trillón if u include Black operations and other dirty laundry from the Empire.

USA strategy for the Destruction of RUSSIA

Since Cold War Era USA has try to weaken and contain his old enemy, but under the politicis of Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter assistant) the strategy turn more aggressive making the war of Afganistan (Russia Vietnam) in which most of the Islamics Guerrillas (talibans & Osama Bin Laden group) where backup by CIA with money and weapons to fight against the Soviets. Using others to get an objective that the way of working of Brzezinski and he doesn’t matter how many people die in the process, in a interview he told a reporter what is most important the destruction of a country or the dead of USSR.

Master strategy was to expand NATO to ex-Soviet states (Baltic) just to make a containment fence to control Russia.

In his book “Beetween two Ages” he said that there should a new way of Global power where Japan, European Union and USA take the power of the new World Order.

He was giving total support to Chechen rebels (Islamic Fanactics) where he propose a total independence from Russia and after that meeting the rebels attack Beslan School. Chechen are peons in his great plan they are only being used to prevent Russia from using the pipelines there, Ismalic terrorist in chechenya are being backup by US agencies.

RUSSIA needs to be consider again the EVIL EMPIRE so US would have free way to Contain and subordinate it from the world, also with that US would prevent Russia to reach and agreement with EU about Energy.

PENTAGON vs Peak Oil

On 1991 a US soldier consumed 4 gallons of oil per day now the consumed 16.

Pentagon is the world biggest consumer of Oil in the World

“US forces must expand geographically and be more mobile and expeditionary so that they can be engaged in more theaters and prepared for expedient deployment anywhere in the world”

How much OIL DOD consumes on their wars let see 16 Gallons of Oil per day, Multiply this by 162,000 soldiers (Iraq), 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 on ships and bases in the Persian Area and you get aprox. 3.5 million gallons daily of oil in the Middle East “war” zone, in 1 year you get 1.3 billion gallons

Pentagon Oil consuming machines are:

As of September 30, 2005 the US Air Force had 5,986 aircraft in service.

At the beginning of 2006 the US Navy had 285 combat and support ships, and around 4,000 operational aircraft (planes and helicopters).

At the end of 2005, the US Army had a combat vehicle fleet of approximately 28,000 armored vehicles (tracked vehicles such as Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles). Besides those the Army and the Marine corps have tactical wheeled vehicles such as 140,000 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles. The US Army has also over 4,000 combat helicopters and several hundred fixed wing aircraft.

Add all those also 187,493 fleet vehicles (passenger cars, busses, light trucks etc) the US Department of Defense (DOD) uses.

RELATED LINKS

US Army Oil Pains

Energy Bulletin: Pentagon Vs Oil Peak

Michel Chossudovsky's: USA “War” On terror

USA goverment MILITARY COMPLEX

Since the arrival on 2000 of W Bush to the White House the US MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX has taken more power (and money) than ever, US Army in all its services has today nearly 1,389.000 million people serving, this new increase just because Bush Global War on TERROR.

Military no only has influence in the most upper levels of the government, now the also has power on MEDIA, they are now searching more free action inside USA, Posse Comitatus doesn’t allow that.

The main benefactor in BUSH government is Carlyle Group, they have liquid money of $14,000 millions of dollars, investments in all the world. That group was founded on 1987, manage by: Frank C. Carlucci (ex-Defense Secretary of Bush sr.), George Bush SR. (ex-US president), James Baker (ex-State Secretary of Bush sr.), John Major (ex-UK Prime Minister), John Malek (ex-campaign advisor of Bush jr.), Sami Barrma (CEO of Prime Comercial Bank ), what a gang eh??.

This group obtain more money for investments on UNITED DEFENSE INDUSTRIES INC. the main supplier of weapons. UDI has a some HUGE contracts with the government for $12,000 Millions of dollars since 9-11.

Military advisor are now supervising most of Hollywood Movies to highlight the honor of serving in the ARMY and also the emphasize the great of having weapons in puritan society that reject nudity on movies but says ITS ok a bloodshed on screen. But the main highlight of movies has to be the USA right of Saving the world and face the EVIL portray by Islamics or traitors that want to bring PAIN & DEATH to the Good USA.

What Eisenhower was afraid at the end of his presidency is true NOW, US new Government MILITARY COMPLEX, lot of corruption and nepotism but nobody do nothing.

Joe Liberman wants Iran blood

US BASES surrounding Iran (click on image for bigger size)

This past week on a CBS program these US Senator ask for an immediate attack on IRAN, he says that with Iran support more and more Irak people are killing the troops of US but he doesn’t have any proof of that. This senator has a strong support ($$$) of AIPAC and Isreael support office that is why the real causes of these senator to go to war are not clear.

IRAN nuclear Installations

This past June 8 Russia gave a green light to deliver the Nuclear Fuel to Busher Iran nuclear plant via Caspian Sea and being delivered on Bandar Anzili Port, maybe the fuel arrive the plan of june 11.

Liberman doesn’t know that Iran has the most lethal weapon every produced by the Soviet call SS-N-22 Sunburn (NATO codename) reaching a speed of Mach 3 its consider the most fastest antiship missile of the world, with a effective range of 250 km and capable of carrying a warhead of 705 pound (nuclear capable). This state of the art missile is capable evading the AEGIS system making elusive and violent maneuvers, after being lauch is nearly impossible to stop them so the US Navy ship are floating tombs.

If the US Navy lost ships the response of the Empire would be ruthless, with a result of high rocket price of Oil, but if they plan to invade Iran this would be the greatest mistake of Bush cuz the people of that country would be united to fight the Invader that want to take the spoils (oil).

Since Clinton presidency, Samuel Huntingon knew that most of the World sees USA as the worst danger for World Peace, and a TIME poll in Europe reveal that 85% of ppl believe that also, that is why most countries are searching for WMD to protect against an illegal attack like the one on Irak.

RELATED LINKS

Senator Lieberman advocates military strike on Iran (video)

Cheny Pushing for attack on Iran

BBC US biggest global peace threat

Moscow Releases Nuclear Fuel for Iran’s Bushehr Reactor

TIME: USA biggest Threat to Peace: 85% of Europeans

Can you spell Sunburn missiles, Senator Joe Lieberman?

Moskit SS-N-22 (FACTS)

Another US Carrier arrive on Persian Gulf

Last friday USS enterprise joined the US fleet sorrounding the Persian gulf, making plans for the attack that Dick Cheney has been planning long time ago...he promise on may that 4 carriers would be ready to the attack.

USS Stenis and Nimitz are already there making the largest aircraft and sea deploy of all times, Cheney wants to ignite the conflict puting lots of US Navy ships there so for Iran would quite easy to sink one of them so USA would be a victim with full right to NUKE Iran, those are the secret plans of the crazy Cheney...after the attack the Salvation army opps I mean Halliburton would be ready to reconstruct the country and Cheney would get some dollars of that...and some OIL of course

Israel IAF is also ready to attack the "EVIL" Iran making some exercises with their aircrafts, if these rogue country attack it would start a nuclear arm race on the region to have deterrence from attack of Israel or the US Empire.

Israel F-16

USA is pushing EU to cancel nearly $22 billions dollars in loans to Iran

RELATED LINKS

Enterprise Joins Fleet Near Iran

ISRAEL IAF preparing for Iran strike

Russia New Army by 2015

Since 2006 and the continue aggressive attack (verbal) by USA Russia unveiled a plan to replace nearly half of Army Hardware by 2015, and they would start spending nearly $200 billion dollars, money get by the high price of oil. They would buy 50 Topol M ICBM, 50 new bombers (maybe Tu-160), and 31 surface ships, and some 40 tank regiments.

SS-27 TOPOL M

T-90 TANK

The most important issue is the modernization of Russia ABM system now that the old treaty was break by USA, the military would begin a full research program for making true the new system S-400 far better that S-300, and light years away from Patriot PAC-3.

S-300 Missile Complex


Yuri Dolgoruki BOREY CLASS NEW SUB

They would start buying more BOREY class submarines and also some new satellites so the early warning system can be in shape like in Soviet Times. But the Russian Problems is not only HARDWARE the have a lack of good and qualify people (software) for the machinery.

Tu-160 bomber "White Swan"

Ivanov told that Russia Weapon factories can still produce State of the Art Weaponry, even that most of the industry was lost during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today with that high Russia spend in the military the budget is 25 times less than the USA.

On May 28, Russia tested the latest version of TOPOL M call “RS-24” capable of carrying 10 warheads. An asymmetric response to Bush ABM on Europe.

RS-24 Launching

LINKS

NEWS

RIA NOVOSTI RUSSIA NEW ARMY

Putin and World Geopolitics