Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Friday 10 August 2012


7 New Messages

Digest #4457

Messages

Thu Aug 9, 2012 7:27 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_08_09/Iran-vs-Poland-and-UN-General-Assembly-s-plans-on-Syria/

Voice of Russia
August 9, 2012

Iran vs Poland and UN General Assembly’s plans on Syria - interview
John Robles

Audio at URL above

Iran is boosting its rocket plan aimed at Poland, while UN’s calling for a pluralistic multi-party political system plan for Syria. Last Friday’s General Assembly’s resolution was drafted by Saudi Arabia and then co-sponsored by Bahrain and Qatar. VoR asked Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list, to comment on these issues. Part II.

Can you tell us how Iran's new space center boosts its rocket plan, especially launching ballistic missiles over Poland?

Try to imagine how Iran first of all would have the capability of launching basically intercontinental ballistic missiles over Poland, presumably over the Arctic Circle to hit the United States. I mean that’s an impossibility, fallacious from the very beginning. When the Obama administration scaled that back somehow by suggesting that Standard Missile-3 interceptors, which have a shorter range, could be used to intercept Iranian missiles, then it begs the question, where?

At what point do you intercept the Iranian missiles? The trajectory and the range of the Standard Missile-3s could potentially intercept them some place south of Poland, but where – Ukraine, the Caucasus? They don’t carry a charge, they’re kinetic, hit-to-kill missiles, as they're called. So presumably no real damage is done in the fallout over the intended country. I don’t know that Ukraine or Armenia or whomever would be affected by this would be consulted before this happening. But one thing that gives the lie to the entire argument, the deployment of any sort of interceptor missiles in Poland is aimed against Iran, is the fact that in May of 2010 the U.S. moved a Patriot, short-range, interceptor missile battery into the city of Morag in Poland, which is, I believe, only about 40 miles or 35 miles from the Russian territory of Kaliningrad.

And these are short range missiles?

Right, which can only be in place against presumed Russian missiles coming in. They haven’t the range to do anything in regard to Iran. There's talk about how Poland wanted an assurance from the United States that if they put the longer-range missiles in they have protection, but protection clearly not from Iran, or they wouldn’t put short-range Patriot interceptors near the Russian border. The inescapable conclusion is that the Patriots are there as at least a symbolic signal to Russia.

What’s your take on the United Nations General Assembly vote from last week’s Friday? You wrote a very interesting article about it for your website.

Yes, it is a second vote of that nature in the General Assembly this year. There was earlier one in February and then it was repeated last Friday. It is comparable to what the United States did in January of 1980 when the Carter administration went to the General Assembly to secure - of course, General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, the Security Council would have to authorize anything substantive, like an chapter 7 military intervention, for example. But what the Carter administration did in January of 1980 was to go to the General Assembly and get an overwhelming vote condemning the initial Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, which had occurred only a couple weeks earlier, towards the end of December in 1979.

But it wasn’t so important in terms of rallying or marshalling support within the world community for any action. It was more a propaganda victory for the United States, which then could portray the Soviet Union as being an aggressor in Afghanistan and justify its own covert involvement in supporting the Afghan Mujahedin, with everything that's entailed, everything that's happened to Afghanistan in the interim.

So, what happened in February and what happened again last Friday are clearly out of the same playbook, if you will, with what happened in the 1980s. What the United States and its NATO allies have done is introduce a resolution that appears on the surface to be somewhat balanced but is weighted heavily against the government in Damascus and calls for amongst other things the introduction of a, roughly paraphrasing it, a pluralistic multi-party political system within Syria. And Syria, though dominated by the Ba’ath party, actually does have a multi-party system in the parliament.

The resolution, and I think your listeners have to know this, the resolution was drafted by Saudi Arabia and then co-sponsored by Bahrain and Qatar. So, you have hereditary monarchies, the least democratic nations in the world, drafting a resolution being pushed by the United States and its Western allies, its NATO allies, calling for political transformation in Syria along the lines of what I indicated with the paraphrase, but no sense of irony evidently in the world to realize that of all countries in the world that have been chosen to draft that resolution it's Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, and Qatar and, I think, Egypt at one point co-sponsored it. But these are the worst possible examples, and again reveals the abject, the arrant hypocrisy of the West to be talking about a democratic transformation and a transition, governmental transition, in Syria and at the same time hiding behind the likes of Saudi Arabia to effect that.

Teaming up with the Al-Qaeda, to bring that about?

Nobody is denying the fact that there are jihadi, Wahhabi, Salafist, al-Qaeda elements operating in Syria as part of the so-called Free Syrian Army, and the United States seems to be willing, as it did last year in Libya under very similar circumstances, to not only tolerate but to assist that process.

But going back to the vote, there were 133 countries voting in favor, only 12 voting against and 31 abstaining. The abstentions are from countries that are hesitant to generally support the United States in its more aggressive moves around the world but, in all honesty, to have taken a principled position those 31 countries by rights should have voted against it. They include nations ranging from Ecuador to Vietnam to Suriname, and other nations that have more or less independent foreign policy orientations.

But what is frightening is that both in the February vote and again last Friday there were only 12 nations out of 193 in the General Assembly that voted against the resolution: Russia, China and Syria, but only nine other nations have stood with them. Those nine nations as we talked about before in your program are nations that are already targeted for a Syrian- or Libyan-style regime change program themselves, nations like Zimbabwe, Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela and others.

Or simply by standing up to the United States and its faithful ally Saudi Arabia have declared themselves targets for Syrian-style subversion, insurrection, regime change. It’s a very sad moment in the world where the U.S. and its allies have managed to corral that high a percentage of General Assembly members, nations in the world in fact, to support what was clearly a one-sided resolution aimed against the government of Syria, and in the words of the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, he said something to the effect that the resolution acted as though there was no armed opposition in the country, attaching no blame to the opposition for any of the violence.

He came down on government officials, these are insurgents trying to take over the government and trying to engage in a violent overthrow of the official government of the country and the resolution just placed all the blame on the government.

That’s exactly what it did. And in regard again to the sponsors, these great models of Euro-Atlantic or Transatlantic democracy like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Bahrain, the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations referred to them quite justly, quite accurately, as despotic oligarchies, which is precisely what they are. Yet nobody in the West appears to be embarrassed to have allowed these three countries to sponsor, and Saudi Arabia to draft, a resolution calling for what they have the audacity to refer to as democracy.
====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

Thu Aug 9, 2012 7:28 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iOaYJBzgEdrltyCpR6MZR5v6PEgw?docId=N0347041344478793353A

Press Association
August 9, 2012

Nato U-turn 'means nukes stay here'

An independent Scotland could be forced to keep nuclear weapons if it remains in Nato, peace protesters have said.

Trident Ploughshares demonstrated outside SNP headquarters in Edinburgh against the party leadership's proposal to ditch their historic opposition to Nato. The campaigners fear a U-turn will lead to the SNP softening its position on removing Trident from Scotland, despite the party's denials.

One protester fears that Nato would compel Scotland to keep the nukes as a condition of remaining part of the nuclear-armed military alliance.

Jane Tallents, 54, from Helensburgh, said: "Belgium has nuclear weapons on its soil and its government has asked for them to be removed, but its requests are not being heeded because it is signed up to Nato and it is stuck with them. It seems to have contracts drawn up that mean that (Nato) have the use of these bases. It's quite difficult to get them out (of Scotland) if we don't want to leave Nato."

Trident Ploughshares accuses the SNP of spreading misinformation about its proposed U-turn, saying that the SNP previously told them that talk of any U-turn was "simply rumours put about by a hostile media", until defence spokesman Angus Robertson confirmed that he would ask the party to adopt a pro-Nato stance at its October conference.

Ms Tallents also said that a "man from the SNP" approached protesters and denied that First Minister Alex Salmond intends to support Mr Robertson's resolution. Mr Salmond told a press briefing on July 18 that he supports keeping Scotland in Nato.

Ms Tallents said: "A man came out from SNP headquarters and said he doesn't think that's the case, so I think you need to investigate a bit of that. You should ask Alex. I think you should get Alex Salmond to clarify his position. It's interesting to know that the man from the SNP is trying to deny that. I wonder if there's some backtracking going on."

Around 20 people attended the demonstration, with slogans such as "Nato wobble now - nuke wobble next" and "Nukes and Nato go thegither".

Mr Robertson's resolution faces internal party opposition from a group led by SNP MSP Jamie Hepburn. He has tabled an amendment urging the SNP conference to maintain its policy "that Scotland should not remain a member of Nato" because it "continues to be a nuclear weapons-based alliance".

An SNP spokesman said that if the amendment is accepted, it will be published in the conference agenda around September 14.
====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

Thu Aug 9, 2012 7:28 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff

http://www.taylor-report.com/articles/index.php?id=76

The Taylor Report
August 6, 2012

Applying Vidal lessons to Syria, noting the Euro-American feckless "left"
Phil Taylor

With the passing of Gore Vidal, the matter of Syria comes to mind. It was Vidal's thesis that the urge to be an empire eclipsed the democratic and egalitarian spirit behind the war of independence and the civil war.

Witnessing the assaults on Syria inspired by Gulf monarchs and NATO states Vidal would put his finger on the problem, America's urge to be the "indispensible nation", an empire. Tragically, many, not all, of the American "left" has long since picked-up the empire virus.

Obama says Assad must go and the little (left) Obamas agree. Writing in Counterpunch (August 1, 2012) Phyllis Bennis and Shahab Jafry quibble about details and add charges against Assad and then say Assad must go (and perhaps be punished by some appropriate European "international" court). Vidal always laughed wickedly at empire helpers such as these. He had read, and written, a history book or two.

While Vidal said clearly that the US is not interested in promoting democracy or stability (witness the removal of Aristide in Haiti and the NATO bombing zone of Libya) the American and European left have bumped around in their damp ideological basements arguing over which foreigner needs removing; they can't get out of their own way, perhaps from love or fear of their own masters.

Meanwhile states such as Cuba and Venezuela, also out of step with American dictates, are urging Syria to resist. Each knows the "humanitarian" goliath wants to kick in their doors.

Actually, Syria faces long odds against wealthy and implacable enemies, but if the rebels were defeated Assad would likely be a highly appreciated "strong-man" for defying the dictates of the empire. And the royalists of the Gulf and the NATO parties of Turkey might begin to feel some heat. A very good thing indeed.

So let us avoid the lame left which always follows the agenda and nomenclature of Bush/Obama land and instead demand an end to the conceit of empire, telling the NATO hoodlums to keep their hands to themselves.

And thank Vidal for presenting a clear picture of the real world.
====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

Thu Aug 9, 2012 7:28 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_08_09/US-missile-shield-will-protect-Persian-Gulf-democracies/

Voice of Russia
August 9, 2012

US missile shield will protect Persian Gulf democracies
Boris Volkhonsky

====

[P]ublicity surrounding the US anti-missile plans in Europe has one particular objective in mind – that is persuading everyone that the shield is not what it really is, and that it is directed against some rogue terrorist states like Iran and North Korea. It has been pointed out numerous times that a shield in Poland, Romania or Czech Republic can hardly intercept Iranian missiles (less so – North Korean). So the only real objective the shield can have is purely a demonstration of muscle to Western and Central Europe's immediate neighbors in the East, mainly Russia.

[W]hat makes the case of the US cooperation with the Gulf monarchies so embarrassing for the US is the fact that in this case it cannot resort to its usual tactics of using the "human rights" issue as a pretext for "humanitarian intervention". While portraying Iranian regime as non-democratic in the eyes of Western public (which is naturally resentful of everything Islamic) produces little difficulty, picturing the Gulf states as models of democracy is not so easy.

[T]he virus of Arab Spring is rather contagious. The US is in no way willing to risk anything of the kind happening to its long-time allies, like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others. Therefore, one of the side tasks of enhanced military cooperation with the Gulf monarchies is an attempt to divert a possibility of a Syrian-type insurgency.

====

As reported by The New York Times on Wednesday, the United States and its Arab allies are knitting together a regional missile defense system across the Persian Gulf to protect cities, oil refineries, pipelines and military bases from an Iranian attack.

The paper characterizes this as "an enterprise that is meant to send a pointed message to Tehran", and it "becomes more urgent as tensions with Iran rise."

In fact, little is new in the story. The idea of putting up a missile shield in the Persian Gulf was first raised by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about three years ago. During her recent visit to Saudi Arabia she tried to further encourage the Gulf allies to work towards a common defense system.

"Sometimes to defend one nation effectively you might need a radar system in a neighboring nation," the paper quotes Ms. Clinton as saying.

The practical implementation of the idea has also begun. Defense cooperation between the US and its allies in the Gulf is expanding, with the US supplying modern weapons and military technology. Still, there is a sharp contrast between the US activity in the region and similar actions in Europe. While Washington's European initiatives, undertaken within the NATO framework are widely publicized, similar interactions with the Gulf states go on largely behind the scenes. So, what is the US afraid or ashamed of?

There are several explanations to it. First, publicity surrounding the US anti-missile plans in Europe has one particular objective in mind – that is persuading everyone that the shield is not what it really is, and that it is directed against some rogue terrorist states like Iran and North Korea. It has been pointed out numerous times that a shield in Poland, Romania or Czech Republic can hardly intercept Iranian missiles (less so – North Korean). So the only real objective the shield can have is purely a demonstration of muscle to Western and Central Europe's immediate neighbors in the East, mainly Russia.

On the contrary, the shield in the Persian Gulf is evidently pointed at Iran. Then why is the US so shy about it?

As the course of events around the so called "Iranian nuclear program" has shown, Iran's position is mostly defensive. It is the US that uses the tool of sanctions against Iran and Iran-related companies – not vice versa. It is the US that increases its military build-up in the region and stirs up its allies to openly speak of a preventive strike, and then intervenes with "dovish" rhetoric and poses as a kind of appeaser.

But what makes the case of the US cooperation with the Gulf monarchies so embarrassing for the US is the fact that in this case it cannot resort to its usual tactics of using the "human rights" issue as a pretext for "humanitarian intervention". While portraying Iranian regime as non-democratic in the eyes of Western public (which is naturally resentful of everything Islamic) produces little difficulty, picturing the Gulf states as models of democracy is not so easy.

But the stakes are too high, and when there is one main obstacle on the way of establishing US dominance in the Great Middle East, "human rights" and "democracy" can wait.

All this leads to the only plausible explanation of the whole US strategy. Definitely, it is not the "nuclear problem" as such that bothers Washington. Its real aim is a) isolating Iran and b) instigating a regime change along the lines of the "Arab Spring" and later – replacing the countries that are presently dealing with Iran, including its nuclear sector.

But the virus of Arab Spring is rather contagious. The US is in no way willing to risk anything of the kind happening to its long-time allies, like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others. Therefore, one of the side tasks of enhanced military cooperation with the Gulf monarchies is an attempt to divert a possibility of a Syrian-type insurgency.

That is not to say that the missile shield as such can be used as a tool against a possible revolution. But having invested so much in the military infrastructure of the "model democracies of the Gulf", the US will not let all the "toil and spoil" to be lost too easily. And that means that at the first hint of an anti-government uprising, the US will be the first to react – and in a totally different way from how it reacts to processes in Libya or Syria.

Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

Thu Aug 9, 2012 7:28 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/

SteveLendmanBlob
August 9, 2012

Full-Scale War in Syria
By Stephen Lendman

Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov calls it "full-scale civil war." It's full-scale but not civil.

Syria's been invaded. Civil war implies two internal warring sides. That's very much not the case. Primakov said:

"Mercenaries and volunteers from other states are fighting (Assad) jointly with" violent internal forces. Most Syria opponents are nonviolent. They want peaceful conflict resolution. Washington has other ideas.

"President Obama has given a direct order to the CIA to support the Syrian opposition."

"That is flagrant interference in internal affairs of a sovereign state, which does not endanger the United States or anyone else."

"Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding militants. Turkey is giving them active support." So are other regional countries.

"Russia holds the only correct position," he added. "We have a moral position: we care for life and security of millions of people and for stability of the huge and important region."

Syria is strategically important for Moscow. Tartus is its only Mediterranean base. Protecting it is key. Assad is a valued regional ally. It's in Russia's interest to support him.

Moscow backed Annan's peace plan dependent on keeping him in power and having Syrian sovereignty be respected. Its strategy also lets other global allies know it's committed to back them if needed. Some have their own internal problems and need reassurance.

Regional economic interests are also important. Much more is involved than weapons.

Russia constructed Iran's Bushehr nuclear facility and agreed to build three more. Both countries have strategic ties. They also have other economic relations.

Russian Federation regions have additional ones. Both countries cooperate on oil and gas interests.

Russian expertise and technology helped build Syrian infrastructure. It's also responsible for dozens of industrial facilities. It includes about one-third of its electrical power capacity, another third of its oil-related operations, and help building the Euphrates dam.

Maritime interests are important. Linking Latakia, Syria with Novorossiysk, Russia on the Black Sea facilitates cargo shipments. Gazprom has oil and gas development operations.

Both countries have nuclear energy ties. They also cooperate on other commercial, scientific, military, and environmental issues.

Russia and Syria enjoyed strategic relations for decades. Patrick Seale called Moscow Hafez Assad's main ally. Given Washington's regional ambitions, both countries serve each other strategically.

Greater Washington Eurasian control threatens Moscow directly. Preventing it is key. Standing firm on Syria and Iran is vital.

America infests the region with military bases. Offensive missile shield installations target Russia and China. Both countries partnered with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan in a Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) alliance.

India, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, and Mongolia have observer status. Belarus and Sri Lanka are dialogue partners. Expanding the organization is planned.

SCO supports economic cooperation, peace, and national sovereignty. Member states are a potential bulwark against Washington-led NATO aggression.

On June 6 and 7, members met in Beijing. Security and economic cooperation issues were discussed. Washington's missile shield was condemned.

Its North Africa/Eurasian militarization threatens Russia, China, Iran, and other countries. Syria is ground zero. Holding the line is vital. Odds of succeeding are uncertain. Washington doesn't quit once strategic plans are implemented.

Assad promises to try. On August 8, SANA state media said he's determined to defeat terrorists responsible for mass killings and atrocities.

He spoke during a meeting with Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Saeed Jalili. They met on issues affecting both countries. They agreed that resolving Syria's crisis depends on internal solutions.

Separately, SANA reported Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi warning about:

"plots which aim at destabilizing peace and stability in the region, instigate conflicts among the minorities and sects which lived together in peace in order to change the situations in the region."

Salehi met with Turkish officials in Ankara. They discussed 48 Iranian visitors abducted by Syrian insurgents. At issue is ensuring their safety and release. Reportedly three were killed.

Syrian captors said one was a Russian general. They identified him as Major General Vladimir Kuzheez. Moscow's Defense Ministry called the claim "complete lies." An official statement added:

"The goal of broadcasting such statements is not just to cause a sensation, but a clear attempt at a slur toward the Russian Army."

Kuzheev is very much alive. He met with journalists and dismissed reports of his death, saying:

"I want to express thanks to the media for their attention to my person....I want to confirm that I am well and alive in Moscow....I realize that this information is a provocation not only against me but against my country."

Saudi controlled Al Arabiya broadcast a video featuring Free Syrian Army representatives claiming Kuzheev was killed. They showed what they called his photo ID identity card. It was fake.

The battle for Aleppo continues. Government forces cleared insurgents from Salaheddin. They're gaining the upper hand. Reports are the city is surrounded.

Five Saudi and two Turkish military officers were captured. One was a Turkish general. Earlier insurgent claims about controlling most of the city were false.

They're outmanned, outgunned, and outmaneuvered. They're being defeated. Nonetheless, clearing them from neighborhoods takes time.

Press TV cited reports about insurgents supplied with chemical weapons. It said Turkey gave them surface-to-air Stinger missiles. They came with "thermal rockets and sophisticated weaponry."

"More than 100 Turkish troops backed with armored vehicles and helicopters entered the Syrian border town of Cerablos in the Kurdish region of Kobani on Tuesday."

"A spokesman for the Kurdish militias in the border towns of Kobani and Efrin accused the Turkish forces of supplying arms and ammunition to insurgents fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government."

"NBC News also reported on July 31 that nearly two dozen MANPADs (man-portable air-defense systems) have been delivered to the insurgents in Syria by Turkey."

Rick Rozoff also said Turkey has troops in Syria. They threatened to use them to protect a site agreed to in 1921.

Ankara was guaranteed the right to station forces at the Suleyman Shah mausoleum. He's the grandfather of Ottoman Empire founder Osman I (Osman Bey).

Turkey considers the site and surrounding area sovereign territory. A small military contingent protects it. Whether it's a wedge for larger numbers and planned belligerency remains to be seen.

Rozoff said the site was "proclaimed a NATO outpost in Syria." Developments ahead warrant close monitoring. Incrementally they head toward Western and/or regional intervention.

On August 6, Ron Paul warned about more war, saying:

"The administration seems determined to fight yet another war in Syria that has nothing to do with American national interests."

"Neoconservatives have long demanded that we overthrow the Syrian government before moving on to war against Iran. This bellicosity continues regardless of which party is in the White House."

"In Syria we see once again we see how our interventionist policies backfire and make us less secure."

Washington has no business being involved in Syria, he added. "When will we learn our lesson and stop intervening in conflicts....having nothing to do with American national interests?"

Republican and Democrat hawks way outnumber Paul and other congressional doves. Obama heads toward war. Electoral politics dictate timing. Post-election may be planned. He and Romney are like-minded.

It doesn't matter who wins. Both men support war. Expect it. Only its timing is unknown. Catastrophic consequences look certain.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

Thu Aug 9, 2012 7:28 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_08_09/US-drones-strikes-prompt-Pakistan-to-strengthen-ties-with-Russia/

Voice of Russia
August 9, 2012

US drones strikes prompt Pakistan to strengthen ties with Russia
Jared DeLuna

As anti-American sentiment grows in Pakistan, one retired Pakistani General believes it is time for Pakistan and Russia to build stronger ties. With the war in Afghanistan spilling into Pakistan, Brigadier Nadir Mir believes America needs to stop overstepping its bounds. The recent drone attacks in Pakistan have put a strain on the very fragile relationship between the two countries.

“The drone strikes are not only an attack on land but also on Pakistan’s sovereignty. They lead to extremism and radicalism, as many innocent people get killed or injured. Pakistan has regularly warned the USA to end drone strikes. The attacks have resulted in increasing anti-Americanism. The strikes are counterproductive, they help produce more militants then they kill.” Brigadier Nadir Mir told The Voice of Russia.

However, the general also believes that America and Pakistan can rekindle their ties, if only to a certain extent. He states that bringing peace to Afghanistan is in a great interest for both countries.

“Pakistan and America can rekindle their ties to an extent; the strain in ties is due to US War in Afghanistan spilling over into Pakistan. Efforts should be made for negotiated peace in Afghanistan, a stable but unoccupied Afghanistan is in the interest of Pakistan, USA, Russia, China and everybody else.” He added.

Will making a pact with Russia be fruitful for Pakistan? Brigadier Nadir Mir certainly thinks so. “Russia and Pakistan can help create consensus in the entire Central Asian–West Asian region for peace and geo-economic bonding.”

Pakistan clearly is looking to become a major economic player in the world as it aims to bring in support from China and other neighboring countries.

China has already spent hundreds of millions in developing Pakistan, creating new trade routes into their own country as well as spreading their own influence.

According to Brigadier Nadir Mir, Russia is the obvious step in creating a new world power for Pakistan. “By joining a pact with Pakistan, Russia and China can establish an economic power house.”

Brigadier Nadir Mir also states “Pakistan is located at the crossroads of empires. Geo-economically it is a ‘bridge state’ between multiple regions, geo-strategically; it is the ‘interposing state’.”

According to Brigadier Nadir Mir, America’s war is not the only reason for Pakistan seeking stronger ties with Russia. The fact of the matter is, America is an ocean away, and Russia is logically a powerful neighbor that they wish to embrace.

“For decades Pakistan has been an American ally which is oceans away. Russia is much closer. Moscow and Islamabad need to build a stronger relationship.” He added.

No matter how we look at this, America seems to be losing its influence around the world. As China and Russia pick up the pieces, America will be trying hard to rekindle any ties it had with Pakistan as well as other countries in the Middle East and South Asia.
====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================

Thu Aug 9, 2012 8:00 pm (PDT) . Posted by:

"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff

http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/germany/report-german-colonel-who-ordered-airstrike-that-killed-dozens-of-afghans-being-promoted-1.185214

Stars and Stripes
August 9, 2012

Report: German colonel who ordered airstrike that killed dozens of Afghans being promoted

KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany: The German colonel who ordered an airstrike in northern Afghanistan in 2009 that resulted in the deaths of some 140 Afghan civilians is being promoted, according to media reports.

Col. Georg Klein ordered the airstrike on two fuel trucks in Kunduz province, reportedly after receiving warnings that the trucks would be used to attack his installation.

Klein is to be named head of a new federal office for personnel management of the nation’s federal defense force early next year, according to the German news agency DPA. Although he will receive a general’s salary, he likely will not be promoted to brigadier general until the end of next year, Der Spiegel newsmagazine reported in its online edition.

A German Defense Ministry spokesman was quoted as saying Klein is “well suited” for the job and has all the necessary skills, Der Spiegel reported.

Insurgents stole two Afghan fuel trucks several miles from a German base in Kunduz on Sept. 3, 2009, killing one of the drivers. Two 500-pound bombs were dropped in the subsequent airstrike, killing civilians and Taliban members. The bombing happened just two months after the top commander in Afghanistan, U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, issued a directive making it a priority to minimize “the risk to the civilian population as a result of the use of force.”

The bombing prompted six investigations, including one by the German parliament. It also led to the resignations of Germany’s minister of defense, Franz Josef Jung, his assistant minister of defense and the nation’s highest-ranking soldier amid accusations they withheld information about the civilian deaths from lawmakers.

The German news agency DPA initially reported Klein’s promotion, citing government sources.

Klein is currently deputy chief of a personnel office in charge of noncommissioned officers and enlisted that is to be combined with other personnel offices under the new department Klein is to head, Der Spiegel reported.

“The promotion would be a slap in the face of the Afghan civilian population and would be equivalent to a declaration of war,” Karim Popal, a lawyer for survivors of the victims told the German newspaper Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung. The paper quoted him as saying it was a great disappointment and a “serious political mistake.”

It was not clear where the paper reached Popal.