7 New Messages
Digest #4472
Messages
Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:16 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 24, 2012
Libya: war of all against all?
Svetlana Kalmykova
====
Clashes between tribes sometimes happened under Gaddafi as well. But after he was ousted, they became much more frequent. As a rule, the conflicting sides are very well armed, because during the revolution, many foreign countries, helping Gaddafi’s opponents, flooded Libya with arms.
====
Twelve people were killed and dozens wounded as a result of a clash between representatives of two antagonistic tribes in Libya’s northeast.
The country’s security services do not say why these people clashed, but say that when the security forces suppressed the conflict, they confiscated more than 100 tanks and 26 missile launchers from one of these clans, which is opposed to Libya’s current authorities.
According to preliminary data, the conflict, which took place in the town of Zliten, was a clash of two family clans. A source in the Libyan police says that the conflicting sides used heavy weapons, including anti-aircraft machine-gun devices. The bloodshed stopped only after government forces entered the town.
Clashes like this take place nearly every day all over Libya.
“The reasons for these clashes can be very different,” Russian expert in Middle Eastern affairs Evgeny Satanovsky says.
“It can be said without much exaggeration that a war of all against all is now taking place in Libya. The country is populated by several hundred various tribes, who are, as a rule, positioned very antagonistically towards each other. A conflict can emerge over any reason – a dispute over a pasture-land or a water pond, or, say, out of blood revenge.”
“But, probably, most frequently, conflicts occur over oil,” Mr. Satanovsky continues. “Before the revolution, Libya was one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of oil. But when the country was, in fact, ruled by one man, Muammar Gaddafi, he decided it single-handedly (or, maybe, sometimes he consulted with the Ministry of Oil) who would have control over the country’s oil. Now, in a situation of a total chaos, nearly everyone in Libya is trying to seize control of the oil.”
Clashes between tribes sometimes happened under Gaddafi as well. But after he was ousted, they became much more frequent. As a rule, the conflicting sides are very well armed, because during the revolution, many foreign countries, helping Gaddafi’s opponents, flooded Libya with arms.
Terrorist acts have also become frequent in Libya. For example, on August 19, three cars exploded in Tripoli’s center. Three passers-by were killed and five others wounded. On August 20, an attempt to kill an Egyptian diplomat took place in Libya’s second largest city, Benghazi. Fortunately, neither the diplomat nor anyone else suffered.
Libya’s authorities have two suppositions about who was behind these terror acts – either Al Qaeda or supporters of the ousted Gaddafi.
“After Gaddafi was ousted, Libya, in fact, started to fall apart – although, officially, it is still one state,” Vladimir Isaev from the Institute of Oriental Studies says.
“It is no secret that Libya’s current authorities, in fact, have little control over the country. The old army exists no more, and a new one has not been formed yet. The same is true about the police. Every chief of a small tribe is now trying to arm his supporters. It is very easy now to get nearly any kind of weapon in Libya, because during the revolution, large arsenals were pillaged. Now, weapons from these arsenals may emerge in any place – for example, in Sudan or Mali, which are now also gripped with internal conflicts.”
The instability in Libya will, most likely, last for long. The new authorities are obviously not strong enough to stop the war of tribes once and forever.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
August 24, 2012
Libya: war of all against all?
Svetlana Kalmykova
====
Clashes between tribes sometimes happened under Gaddafi as well. But after he was ousted, they became much more frequent. As a rule, the conflicting sides are very well armed, because during the revolution, many foreign countries, helping Gaddafi’s opponents, flooded Libya with arms.
====
Twelve people were killed and dozens wounded as a result of a clash between representatives of two antagonistic tribes in Libya’s northeast.
The country’s security services do not say why these people clashed, but say that when the security forces suppressed the conflict, they confiscated more than 100 tanks and 26 missile launchers from one of these clans, which is opposed to Libya’s current authorities.
According to preliminary data, the conflict, which took place in the town of Zliten, was a clash of two family clans. A source in the Libyan police says that the conflicting sides used heavy weapons, including anti-aircraft machine-gun devices. The bloodshed stopped only after government forces entered the town.
Clashes like this take place nearly every day all over Libya.
“The reasons for these clashes can be very different,” Russian expert in Middle Eastern affairs Evgeny Satanovsky says.
“It can be said without much exaggeration that a war of all against all is now taking place in Libya. The country is populated by several hundred various tribes, who are, as a rule, positioned very antagonistically towards each other. A conflict can emerge over any reason – a dispute over a pasture-land or a water pond, or, say, out of blood revenge.”
“But, probably, most frequently, conflicts occur over oil,” Mr. Satanovsky continues. “Before the revolution, Libya was one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of oil. But when the country was, in fact, ruled by one man, Muammar Gaddafi, he decided it single-handedly (or, maybe, sometimes he consulted with the Ministry of Oil) who would have control over the country’s oil. Now, in a situation of a total chaos, nearly everyone in Libya is trying to seize control of the oil.”
Clashes between tribes sometimes happened under Gaddafi as well. But after he was ousted, they became much more frequent. As a rule, the conflicting sides are very well armed, because during the revolution, many foreign countries, helping Gaddafi’s opponents, flooded Libya with arms.
Terrorist acts have also become frequent in Libya. For example, on August 19, three cars exploded in Tripoli’s center. Three passers-by were killed and five others wounded. On August 20, an attempt to kill an Egyptian diplomat took place in Libya’s second largest city, Benghazi. Fortunately, neither the diplomat nor anyone else suffered.
Libya’s authorities have two suppositions about who was behind these terror acts – either Al Qaeda or supporters of the ousted Gaddafi.
“After Gaddafi was ousted, Libya, in fact, started to fall apart – although, officially, it is still one state,” Vladimir Isaev from the Institute of Oriental Studies says.
“It is no secret that Libya’s current authorities, in fact, have little control over the country. The old army exists no more, and a new one has not been formed yet. The same is true about the police. Every chief of a small tribe is now trying to arm his supporters. It is very easy now to get nearly any kind of weapon in Libya, because during the revolution, large arsenals were pillaged. Now, weapons from these arsenals may emerge in any place – for example, in Sudan or Mali, which are now also gripped with internal conflicts.”
The instability in Libya will, most likely, last for long. The new authorities are obviously not strong enough to stop the war of tribes once and forever.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:16 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
August 24, 2012
Moscow alarmed as Turkey and West hold “Operational Meeting” on Syria
John Robles
====
Turkey wishes to be one of the main players for NATO, the West and its Middle East Allies in the region and has many times failed to support the positions of its once allies and friends, including Syria as well as Russia.
Now the anti-Assad bloc is attempting to terrorize the world into allowing it to invade Syria by using the pre-Iraq-invasion claim of chemical weapons. This has been repeated many times over the past two months and appears to be the new “point of contention” after the provocative airspace violation did not bring about the result sought by the West.
Turkey, the West and their Persian Gulf allies are in violation of international law and internationally accepted norms and should be facing serious international resistance, yet the United Nations and the world continue to allow such infringements on the territorial sovereignty of Syria.
====
Syria’s claims that the uprising on its sovereign territory is being orchestrated from outside the country were given further credibility by an eight-hour operational meeting held in Ankara behind closed doors between US Ambassador to Turkey Elisabeth Jones, Turkish Foreign Ministry Deputy Under-Secretary Halit Cevik, diplomats, military representatives and intelligence agency representatives.
Detailed self-avowed plans for bringing about the hasty collapse of the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were discussed.
Since the beginning of the crisis Turkey has positioned itself as one of the staunchest opponents of President Bashar al-Assad who was once seen as a “friend and brother” according to a recent statement by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Turkey wishes to be one of the main players for NATO, the West and its Middle East Allies in the region and has many times failed to support the positions of its once allies and friends, including Syria as well as Russia. Recent statements in support of Russia’s position against an armed outside intervention into Syria were obviously carefully staged lies to attempt to appease Moscow which will protect its interests in the region.
The meeting follows the recent provocation by Turkey where a Turkish F-4 Phantom Fighter was shot down in Syrian airspace but which did not bring about the planned result.
Ankara and the Western “architects” had hoped to draw NATO into the conflict by claiming Turkey was being threatened by Syria. Unfortunately for NATO and Turkey the real facts behind the incident came out and even though Turkey claimed the plane was shot down in international airspace and the wreckage somehow flew into Syrian territory, no one was buying it.
The aircraft was in violation of Syrian airspace and was shot down in Syrian airspace by Syrian anti-aircraft batteries with a range of only a few kilometers. Those are the facts and no matter how Ankara wanted to repaint the picture that is how events occurred.
Now the anti-Assad bloc is attempting to terrorize the world into allowing it to invade Syria by using the pre-Iraq-invasion claim of chemical weapons. This has been repeated many times over the past two months and appears to be the new “point of contention” after the provocative airspace violation did not bring about the result sought by the West.
The fact that Turkey and the West have been openly funding and supplying violent insurgents, introducing jihadists and every type of foreign mercenary and terrorist, into Syria to continue the bloodshed is a point that should be causing international outrage, yet the West operates unimpeded and openly admits to such violations of international law and international norms.
Turkey has admitted that along with Washington and a number of Arab countries in the Persian Gulf they are training and providing support for foreign fighters on its territory, fighters that are being sent into Syria to support and aid the insurgents. There are reports that as many as 15,000 such foreign fighters are ranged along the Turkish-Syrian border.
Moscow has been opposed to foreign military intervention into the Syrian conflict since the very beginning and this includes “secret” armies being funded and trained by the West in their continuing attempt to force violent regime change in Syria.
The West has never held talks or in any way promoted the bringing about of a peaceful resolution to the internal Syrian conflict and this has alarmingly become completely and totally evident by all the steps that the West has taken and all of the statements issued by Western Officials over the past few months. This includes an August 11th joint statement by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on their joint planning to implement mechanisms to bring about the hasty termination of the current Syrian government.
Turkey, the West and their Persian Gulf allies are in violation of international law and internationally accepted norms and should be facing serious international resistance, yet the United Nations and the world continue to allow such infringements on the territorial sovereignty of Syria.
All contentions by the West and United States that they are the world’s “moral policemen” and “guardians of humanity” now seem to be outrageous.
The violent overthrow of a sovereign government can only be called an egregious violation of international norms. Russia has always called for stopping bloodshed by establishing peace in order for the Syrian people themselves to decide the fate of their own country.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
August 24, 2012
Moscow alarmed as Turkey and West hold “Operational Meeting” on Syria
John Robles
====
Turkey wishes to be one of the main players for NATO, the West and its Middle East Allies in the region and has many times failed to support the positions of its once allies and friends, including Syria as well as Russia.
Now the anti-Assad bloc is attempting to terrorize the world into allowing it to invade Syria by using the pre-Iraq-invasion claim of chemical weapons. This has been repeated many times over the past two months and appears to be the new “point of contention” after the provocative airspace violation did not bring about the result sought by the West.
Turkey, the West and their Persian Gulf allies are in violation of international law and internationally accepted norms and should be facing serious international resistance, yet the United Nations and the world continue to allow such infringements on the territorial sovereignty of Syria.
====
Syria’s claims that the uprising on its sovereign territory is being orchestrated from outside the country were given further credibility by an eight-hour operational meeting held in Ankara behind closed doors between US Ambassador to Turkey Elisabeth Jones, Turkish Foreign Ministry Deputy Under-Secretary Halit Cevik, diplomats, military representatives and intelligence agency representatives.
Detailed self-avowed plans for bringing about the hasty collapse of the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were discussed.
Since the beginning of the crisis Turkey has positioned itself as one of the staunchest opponents of President Bashar al-Assad who was once seen as a “friend and brother” according to a recent statement by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Turkey wishes to be one of the main players for NATO, the West and its Middle East Allies in the region and has many times failed to support the positions of its once allies and friends, including Syria as well as Russia. Recent statements in support of Russia’s position against an armed outside intervention into Syria were obviously carefully staged lies to attempt to appease Moscow which will protect its interests in the region.
The meeting follows the recent provocation by Turkey where a Turkish F-4 Phantom Fighter was shot down in Syrian airspace but which did not bring about the planned result.
Ankara and the Western “architects” had hoped to draw NATO into the conflict by claiming Turkey was being threatened by Syria. Unfortunately for NATO and Turkey the real facts behind the incident came out and even though Turkey claimed the plane was shot down in international airspace and the wreckage somehow flew into Syrian territory, no one was buying it.
The aircraft was in violation of Syrian airspace and was shot down in Syrian airspace by Syrian anti-aircraft batteries with a range of only a few kilometers. Those are the facts and no matter how Ankara wanted to repaint the picture that is how events occurred.
Now the anti-Assad bloc is attempting to terrorize the world into allowing it to invade Syria by using the pre-Iraq-invasion claim of chemical weapons. This has been repeated many times over the past two months and appears to be the new “point of contention” after the provocative airspace violation did not bring about the result sought by the West.
The fact that Turkey and the West have been openly funding and supplying violent insurgents, introducing jihadists and every type of foreign mercenary and terrorist, into Syria to continue the bloodshed is a point that should be causing international outrage, yet the West operates unimpeded and openly admits to such violations of international law and international norms.
Turkey has admitted that along with Washington and a number of Arab countries in the Persian Gulf they are training and providing support for foreign fighters on its territory, fighters that are being sent into Syria to support and aid the insurgents. There are reports that as many as 15,000 such foreign fighters are ranged along the Turkish-Syrian border.
Moscow has been opposed to foreign military intervention into the Syrian conflict since the very beginning and this includes “secret” armies being funded and trained by the West in their continuing attempt to force violent regime change in Syria.
The West has never held talks or in any way promoted the bringing about of a peaceful resolution to the internal Syrian conflict and this has alarmingly become completely and totally evident by all the steps that the West has taken and all of the statements issued by Western Officials over the past few months. This includes an August 11th joint statement by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on their joint planning to implement mechanisms to bring about the hasty termination of the current Syrian government.
Turkey, the West and their Persian Gulf allies are in violation of international law and internationally accepted norms and should be facing serious international resistance, yet the United Nations and the world continue to allow such infringements on the territorial sovereignty of Syria.
All contentions by the West and United States that they are the world’s “moral policemen” and “guardians of humanity” now seem to be outrageous.
The violent overthrow of a sovereign government can only be called an egregious violation of international norms. Russia has always called for stopping bloodshed by establishing peace in order for the Syrian people themselves to decide the fate of their own country.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:16 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.google.
The Press Association
August 25, 2012
SNP group hosts anti-Nato seminar
Anti-Nato campaigners will try to persuade SNP members at a conference to uphold the party's long-standing position of keeping an independent Scotland out of the alliance.
The party's Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) group opposes moves by the leadership, including First Minister Alex Salmond, to swing the party behind Nato in the event of Scottish independence.
It is hosting a seminar in Glasgow to "educate" nationalists about what the about-turn in policy could mean for the party and its chances of securing a Yes vote in the referendum in two years.
Gareth Finn, SNP CND group convener, said: "The main aim is to educate SNP members about what membership of Nato would look like. I'd like to think they're all anti-nuclear but when it comes to Nato, there's a small number of people that seek to change policy."
While Mr Finn sees Nato as a nuclear alliance, the leadership argues that Scotland could join on condition that no nuclear weapons are allowed in the country. This would be used to force the removal of the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent from the Clyde.
Mr Finn pointed to the experience of Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, all Nato countries which host US nuclear weapons but are having to argue for their removal.
The conference is expected to be attended by some MSPs opposed to the proposed change of direction. They include backbenchers Sandra White, John Finnie, Dave Thompson and Jean Urquhart. The SNP's youth wing has already resolved to oppose the pro-Nato motion, due to be debated at the party's annual conference in October.
...
------------
http://news.
STV
August 25, 2012
SNP nuclear activists to call for Scotland to be kept out of Nato
Anti-Nato activists in the SNP are meeting to urge the party leadership not to ditch its policy of keeping Scotland out of the alliance.
The SNP leadership has put the issue of Nato on the agenda for its autumn conference, with defence spokesman Angus Robertson proposing a motion in favour of inheriting the UK's membership.
Mr Robertson has insisted the motion would not change the SNP's anti-nuclear stance, but some campaigners have accused the party of "buckling" over its pledge to remove the Trident submarines from Scottish waters.
The party's Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) group is holding a seminar in Glasgow to "educate" nationalists about what the about-turn could mean.
Gareth Finn, SNP CND group convener, said: "The main aim is to educate SNP members about what membership of Nato would look like. I'd like to think they're all anti-nuclear but when it comes to Nato, there's a small number of people that seek to change policy."
The conference is expected to be attended by some MSPs who oppose the proposed change of direction. They include backbenchers Sandra White, John Finnie, Dave Thompson and Jean Urquhart.
The SNP's youth wing has already resolved to oppose the pro-Nato motion, due to be debated at the party's annual conference in October.
First Minister Alex Salmond has said the party remains firmly anti-nuclear and the SNP would seek to "trade in" the nuclear submarines at Faslane if Scotland became independent.
The Trident Ploughshares anti-nuclear group has accused the leadership of showing a "slowly buckling resolve to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons".
A spokesman said: "To join Nato while claiming that you want rid of Trident just does not make any sense: Nato is a nuclear weapons alliance. If your state does not have nuclear weapons, as a member it means you accept that other members of the alliance are ready to use them to commit mass murder on your behalf.
...
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
The Press Association
August 25, 2012
SNP group hosts anti-Nato seminar
Anti-Nato campaigners will try to persuade SNP members at a conference to uphold the party's long-standing position of keeping an independent Scotland out of the alliance.
The party's Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) group opposes moves by the leadership, including First Minister Alex Salmond, to swing the party behind Nato in the event of Scottish independence.
It is hosting a seminar in Glasgow to "educate" nationalists about what the about-turn in policy could mean for the party and its chances of securing a Yes vote in the referendum in two years.
Gareth Finn, SNP CND group convener, said: "The main aim is to educate SNP members about what membership of Nato would look like. I'd like to think they're all anti-nuclear but when it comes to Nato, there's a small number of people that seek to change policy."
While Mr Finn sees Nato as a nuclear alliance, the leadership argues that Scotland could join on condition that no nuclear weapons are allowed in the country. This would be used to force the removal of the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent from the Clyde.
Mr Finn pointed to the experience of Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, all Nato countries which host US nuclear weapons but are having to argue for their removal.
The conference is expected to be attended by some MSPs opposed to the proposed change of direction. They include backbenchers Sandra White, John Finnie, Dave Thompson and Jean Urquhart. The SNP's youth wing has already resolved to oppose the pro-Nato motion, due to be debated at the party's annual conference in October.
...
------------
http://news.
STV
August 25, 2012
SNP nuclear activists to call for Scotland to be kept out of Nato
Anti-Nato activists in the SNP are meeting to urge the party leadership not to ditch its policy of keeping Scotland out of the alliance.
The SNP leadership has put the issue of Nato on the agenda for its autumn conference, with defence spokesman Angus Robertson proposing a motion in favour of inheriting the UK's membership.
Mr Robertson has insisted the motion would not change the SNP's anti-nuclear stance, but some campaigners have accused the party of "buckling" over its pledge to remove the Trident submarines from Scottish waters.
The party's Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) group is holding a seminar in Glasgow to "educate" nationalists about what the about-turn could mean.
Gareth Finn, SNP CND group convener, said: "The main aim is to educate SNP members about what membership of Nato would look like. I'd like to think they're all anti-nuclear but when it comes to Nato, there's a small number of people that seek to change policy."
The conference is expected to be attended by some MSPs who oppose the proposed change of direction. They include backbenchers Sandra White, John Finnie, Dave Thompson and Jean Urquhart.
The SNP's youth wing has already resolved to oppose the pro-Nato motion, due to be debated at the party's annual conference in October.
First Minister Alex Salmond has said the party remains firmly anti-nuclear and the SNP would seek to "trade in" the nuclear submarines at Faslane if Scotland became independent.
The Trident Ploughshares anti-nuclear group has accused the leadership of showing a "slowly buckling resolve to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons".
A spokesman said: "To join Nato while claiming that you want rid of Trident just does not make any sense: Nato is a nuclear weapons alliance. If your state does not have nuclear weapons, as a member it means you accept that other members of the alliance are ready to use them to commit mass murder on your behalf.
...
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:27 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
August 24, 2012
Death toll of U.S. drone strike in Pakistan rises to 17
ISLAMABAD: The death toll of a U.S. drone strike launched on Friday in Pakistan has risen to 17, reported local Urdu TV channel AAJ.
According to the local media reports, five U.S. drones fired six missiles at three different targets in Pakistan's northwest tribal area of North Waziristan at about noon time.
Three houses located in the villages of Dandra, Darray Nashtar and Maki Ghar in the Shawal area of North Waziristan were targeted during the strike, said local reports.
The killed were believed to be militants.
Friday's U.S. drone strike came just one day after the Pakistani side summoned a U.S diplomat in Islamabad to protest against the recent drone strikes launched prior to or during the Eid holiday, one of the most important festivals from Muslims.
Over the last seven days, U.S. drones launched five strikes in the afore-said area bordering Afghanistan, killing at least 34 suspected militants.
Pakistan insists that such strikes violate the country's sovereignty and are counterproductive to terror war...
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Xinhua News Agency
August 24, 2012
Death toll of U.S. drone strike in Pakistan rises to 17
ISLAMABAD: The death toll of a U.S. drone strike launched on Friday in Pakistan has risen to 17, reported local Urdu TV channel AAJ.
According to the local media reports, five U.S. drones fired six missiles at three different targets in Pakistan's northwest tribal area of North Waziristan at about noon time.
Three houses located in the villages of Dandra, Darray Nashtar and Maki Ghar in the Shawal area of North Waziristan were targeted during the strike, said local reports.
The killed were believed to be militants.
Friday's U.S. drone strike came just one day after the Pakistani side summoned a U.S diplomat in Islamabad to protest against the recent drone strikes launched prior to or during the Eid holiday, one of the most important festivals from Muslims.
Over the last seven days, U.S. drones launched five strikes in the afore-said area bordering Afghanistan, killing at least 34 suspected militants.
Pakistan insists that such strikes violate the country's sovereignty and are counterproductive to terror war...
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:56 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.cbc.
CBC
August 23, 2012
U.S. military convoy rolls through Ottawa
Ottawa residents might have stopped and stared this morning as about 90 U.S. military vehicles travelled through the city.
The convoy, from the Pennsylvania National Guard, was coming from CFB Petawawa where they were involved in a joint exercise with the Canadian military that lasted 16 days.
The vehicles delayed traffic along Highway 17 and then Highway 417. They left Ottawa via Highway 416 then to Highway 401 on their way home to Pennsylvania.
About 900 Canadian soldiers and 400 national guardsmen took part in the training.
...
Traffic delays inevitable
The military vehicles travelled in packets of about 20 at a time, trying to stay in the right lane to avoid halting traffic altogether. But one person tweeted traffic was delayed on Highway 17.
They definitely left many drivers and passersby stopping — but rather because they were in awe.
"We were walking across the bridge and saw all the troops and thought, 'Wow, this is amazing'," said Lynn Zander, who caught the convoy at the Antrim Truck Stop.
The trip home is expected to take about two days. But members of the U.S. National Guard are expected to return for more exercises next year.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
CBC
August 23, 2012
U.S. military convoy rolls through Ottawa
Ottawa residents might have stopped and stared this morning as about 90 U.S. military vehicles travelled through the city.
The convoy, from the Pennsylvania National Guard, was coming from CFB Petawawa where they were involved in a joint exercise with the Canadian military that lasted 16 days.
The vehicles delayed traffic along Highway 17 and then Highway 417. They left Ottawa via Highway 416 then to Highway 401 on their way home to Pennsylvania.
About 900 Canadian soldiers and 400 national guardsmen took part in the training.
...
Traffic delays inevitable
The military vehicles travelled in packets of about 20 at a time, trying to stay in the right lane to avoid halting traffic altogether. But one person tweeted traffic was delayed on Highway 17.
They definitely left many drivers and passersby stopping — but rather because they were in awe.
"We were walking across the bridge and saw all the troops and thought, 'Wow, this is amazing'," said Lynn Zander, who caught the convoy at the Antrim Truck Stop.
The trip home is expected to take about two days. But members of the U.S. National Guard are expected to return for more exercises next year.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:41 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.uznews.
Uznews.net
August 24, 2012
Uzbekistan USA’s strategic partner again
The USA has decided with its partners to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. Uzbekistan will become a key country, which will host a special military centre.
This was discussed at recent talks between US Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake and Uzbek President Islam Karimov in Tashkent on 15 August.
It was the bank accounts of President Karimov’s family that influenced his willingness to agree to cooperate with the USA, a reliable source has said.
The Americans threatened that they might create problems with funds of the president’s elder daughter, Gulnara Karimova, that are deposited in Western bank accounts.
Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan will also provide air and land routes for the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan.
Retreat ways
The use of Central Asia to withdraw NATO troops from Afghanistan in 2014 was first discussed in March, during a visit by US Secretary of Defence Leon Penetta to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
Then, the Kyrgyz defence minister was offered military equipment and weapons by the USA free of charge. Consequently, the same topic was discussed by Pentagon officials in Dushanbe and Tashkent.
Now NATO troops are using about 7,000 M-ATV wheeled armoured personnel carriers, 8,000 MRAP armoured vehicles with mine protection, over 10,000 HMMWV off-road vehicles and auxiliary equipment.
In addition, the Pentagon is ready to hand over medical equipment, communication facilities, fire extinguishing equipment
Kyrgyz Defence Ministry officials then agreed to accept military vehicles and communication facilities.
The Kyrgyz Defence Ministry explained that it would be very expensive to use other equipment, namely small arms taken out of battle fields.
American diplomats continued talks with Tashkent and Dushanbe.
Impossible to manage independently
US military top brass believe that hotbeds of instability may emerge on the Afghan-Tajik and Afghan-Uzbek borders after 2014.
In their opinion, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will not be able to overcome supposed terrorist threats.
CSTO rapid reaction forces will not be able to rebuff Afghan fighters either, the US military believe.
In the opinion of US diplomats, NATO forces can be used to ensure stability in Central Asia.
It is suggested that most of equipment should be given free of charge, and some for storage to Uzbekistan.
At the same time, the matter concerns the possibility of setting up a special military centre to maintain equipment and ensure stability in the region. It will be based in Uzbekistan.
Possibly, later this centre may become another foreign military base in Central Asia.
Leaving bases behind
Americans are not concealing their desire to keep their Manas base in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek. President Almazbek Atambayev last year said that the military base in Bishkek’s Manas airport would be closed in 2014.
But the Kyrgyz government explained that, most likely, the base would remain but under a different name.
The USA will mainly use the territory of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to withdraw forces from Afghanistan.
The diligence of American diplomats in Central Asia has noticeably increased because of the approaching deadline for the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan.
After his visit to Tashkent, Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake said that in October he would visit Kyrgyzstan for a second round of talks.
A meeting with Kyrgyz authorities will touch upon the topic of the future presence of NATO troops in Central Asia.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Uznews.net
August 24, 2012
Uzbekistan USA’s strategic partner again
The USA has decided with its partners to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan. Uzbekistan will become a key country, which will host a special military centre.
This was discussed at recent talks between US Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake and Uzbek President Islam Karimov in Tashkent on 15 August.
It was the bank accounts of President Karimov’s family that influenced his willingness to agree to cooperate with the USA, a reliable source has said.
The Americans threatened that they might create problems with funds of the president’s elder daughter, Gulnara Karimova, that are deposited in Western bank accounts.
Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan will also provide air and land routes for the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan.
Retreat ways
The use of Central Asia to withdraw NATO troops from Afghanistan in 2014 was first discussed in March, during a visit by US Secretary of Defence Leon Penetta to Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
Then, the Kyrgyz defence minister was offered military equipment and weapons by the USA free of charge. Consequently, the same topic was discussed by Pentagon officials in Dushanbe and Tashkent.
Now NATO troops are using about 7,000 M-ATV wheeled armoured personnel carriers, 8,000 MRAP armoured vehicles with mine protection, over 10,000 HMMWV off-road vehicles and auxiliary equipment.
In addition, the Pentagon is ready to hand over medical equipment, communication facilities, fire extinguishing equipment
Kyrgyz Defence Ministry officials then agreed to accept military vehicles and communication facilities.
The Kyrgyz Defence Ministry explained that it would be very expensive to use other equipment, namely small arms taken out of battle fields.
American diplomats continued talks with Tashkent and Dushanbe.
Impossible to manage independently
US military top brass believe that hotbeds of instability may emerge on the Afghan-Tajik and Afghan-Uzbek borders after 2014.
In their opinion, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will not be able to overcome supposed terrorist threats.
CSTO rapid reaction forces will not be able to rebuff Afghan fighters either, the US military believe.
In the opinion of US diplomats, NATO forces can be used to ensure stability in Central Asia.
It is suggested that most of equipment should be given free of charge, and some for storage to Uzbekistan.
At the same time, the matter concerns the possibility of setting up a special military centre to maintain equipment and ensure stability in the region. It will be based in Uzbekistan.
Possibly, later this centre may become another foreign military base in Central Asia.
Leaving bases behind
Americans are not concealing their desire to keep their Manas base in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek. President Almazbek Atambayev last year said that the military base in Bishkek’s Manas airport would be closed in 2014.
But the Kyrgyz government explained that, most likely, the base would remain but under a different name.
The USA will mainly use the territory of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to withdraw forces from Afghanistan.
The diligence of American diplomats in Central Asia has noticeably increased because of the approaching deadline for the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan.
After his visit to Tashkent, Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake said that in October he would visit Kyrgyzstan for a second round of talks.
A meeting with Kyrgyz authorities will touch upon the topic of the future presence of NATO troops in Central Asia.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:41 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.heraldsc
Sunday Herald
August 26, 2012
The Case for Leaving NATO
Dave Thompson
SNP MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch
In Scotland today, I think there is just cause for optimism because when I envision this country's future, I see great potential and great opportunity for us as a nation to choose what is good and right. In just over two years, in the 2014 independence referendum, we will be given the chance to choose who we want to be, what we want to do and where we want to go. The independence referendum is, however, about more than just standing on our own two feet, and managing our own affairs.
It is also about harnessing the potential of our nation and shaping the future, and there are few issues as pressing and urgent as Trident.
The Trident nuclear weapons system is unjustifiable, immoral and grossly expensive and we must use this opportunity to get rid of it. One of the great prizes of Independence, for all nuclear disarmers in the whole of UK, will be the consequence for the UK's Trident programme. In essence, it will be stopped in its tracks.
For decades, anti-nuclear has been the heart and soul of the Scottish National Party and the 2011 manifesto made reference to continued opposition to UK plans for new nuclear weapons.
This brings us to the crux of the debate about Nato membership which will, of course, be decided by the first Scottish Government after the independence elections in 2016.
Will Scotland be able to get rid of Trident if it remains a member of Nato? Current SNP policy is that an independent Scotland should not be a full member of Nato as it is a nuclear alliance with a first strike policy, a position which Nato affirmed in May of this year at the Chicago conference.
Nato's position on nuclear weapons has not, therefore, changed since the SNP reviewed its decades-old policy in 2002 and I believe that it will be much more difficult to get rid of Trident if Scotland stays in Nato.
The experience of Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands provides a clear warning to Scotland. Each of them still has American nuclear weapons on its soil despite efforts to get rid of them.
In 2010, a concerted effort was made by them to urge Nato to rethink its nuclear policy but this initiative has run into the sand.
Scotland would find itself in exactly the same position if it remained a member of Nato.
The good news is there is an alternative which could pave the way for a nuclear-free Britain, which might, in turn, be the start of real nuclear disarmament in Europe with a knock on effect across the rest of the world.
This is because Trident has nowhere to go when Scotland says goodbye to it after independence, a case which is convincingly argued in the CND paper of that name published in February.
There is no viable alternative site for Trident in the rest of the UK, the US or France, so it will be decommissioned and a huge leap forward will take place on nuclear disarmament.
Scotland has a chance to make a real difference after independence and we should have the confidence to project ourselves as a modern nation, with a vision which is rooted in our concern for humanity.
What better way to do that than to insist on the end of Trident nuclear weapons.
We should not let Nato membership cloud that vision, as it undoubtedly will, but we should be bold and show leadership to the rest of the world as we embark on the next exciting chapter of Scotland's history.
Sunday Herald
August 26, 2012
The Case for Leaving NATO
Dave Thompson
SNP MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch
In Scotland today, I think there is just cause for optimism because when I envision this country's future, I see great potential and great opportunity for us as a nation to choose what is good and right. In just over two years, in the 2014 independence referendum, we will be given the chance to choose who we want to be, what we want to do and where we want to go. The independence referendum is, however, about more than just standing on our own two feet, and managing our own affairs.
It is also about harnessing the potential of our nation and shaping the future, and there are few issues as pressing and urgent as Trident.
The Trident nuclear weapons system is unjustifiable, immoral and grossly expensive and we must use this opportunity to get rid of it. One of the great prizes of Independence, for all nuclear disarmers in the whole of UK, will be the consequence for the UK's Trident programme. In essence, it will be stopped in its tracks.
For decades, anti-nuclear has been the heart and soul of the Scottish National Party and the 2011 manifesto made reference to continued opposition to UK plans for new nuclear weapons.
This brings us to the crux of the debate about Nato membership which will, of course, be decided by the first Scottish Government after the independence elections in 2016.
Will Scotland be able to get rid of Trident if it remains a member of Nato? Current SNP policy is that an independent Scotland should not be a full member of Nato as it is a nuclear alliance with a first strike policy, a position which Nato affirmed in May of this year at the Chicago conference.
Nato's position on nuclear weapons has not, therefore, changed since the SNP reviewed its decades-old policy in 2002 and I believe that it will be much more difficult to get rid of Trident if Scotland stays in Nato.
The experience of Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands provides a clear warning to Scotland. Each of them still has American nuclear weapons on its soil despite efforts to get rid of them.
In 2010, a concerted effort was made by them to urge Nato to rethink its nuclear policy but this initiative has run into the sand.
Scotland would find itself in exactly the same position if it remained a member of Nato.
The good news is there is an alternative which could pave the way for a nuclear-free Britain, which might, in turn, be the start of real nuclear disarmament in Europe with a knock on effect across the rest of the world.
This is because Trident has nowhere to go when Scotland says goodbye to it after independence, a case which is convincingly argued in the CND paper of that name published in February.
There is no viable alternative site for Trident in the rest of the UK, the US or France, so it will be decommissioned and a huge leap forward will take place on nuclear disarmament.
Scotland has a chance to make a real difference after independence and we should have the confidence to project ourselves as a modern nation, with a vision which is rooted in our concern for humanity.
What better way to do that than to insist on the end of Trident nuclear weapons.
We should not let Nato membership cloud that vision, as it undoubtedly will, but we should be bold and show leadership to the rest of the world as we embark on the next exciting chapter of Scotland's history.
