8 New Messages
Digest #4529
Messages
Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:12 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.itar-
Itar-Tass
October 24, 2012
Syrian militants have various air defence systems, including U.S. Stinger
MOSCOW: Syrian militants are armed with portable air defence systems produced in other countries, including the United States, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Gen. Nikolai Makarov told reporters on Wednesday.
“The General Staff has information that the militants, who are fighting against Syrian government troops, are armed with the portable air defence systems of various countries, including the Stinger of U.S. production,” he underlined.
Commenting on some media reports that the Obama administration gave instructions to pass on a batch of the portable air defence systems to the formations of the unappeasable Syrian opposition, Makarov said, “The US denies this fact, they say that they did not deliver anything to them (Syrian militants). However, we have reliable information that Syrian militants are armed with foreign portable air defence systems, including U.S. air defence systems.
“It is necessary to find out who supplied it to them,” the chief of the Russian General Staff said. “For this purpose all types of transport can be used, including civil airlines,” he said.
On October 17, a Syrian source stated that the U.S. allegedly decided to pass to Syrian militants a batch of portable air defence systems. “President Barack Obama, who was speaking not quite well at the first round of the debates compared to his rival Mitt Romney, prepared a ‘strong’ card. He gave instructions to pass the air defence systems to formations of the unappeasable Syrian opposition,” he told journalists.
However, the U.S. did not confirm the reliability of this information. Spokesperson of the U.S. State Department Victoria Nuland stated on October 18 that she cannot confirm anything like that.
Under the OSCE Strategy to Address Threats to Security and Stability in the twenty-first century approved in Maastricht in 2003 the organization uses all available instruments for counteracting the proliferation of the air defence systems.
According to the decision taken at the OSCE forum for security cooperation number 3/04 in May 2004 and approved by the OSCE Council of Ministers at the end of the same year, the OSCE states, including the U.S., that it is committed to contribute to the use of efficient and comprehensive mechanisms for the export control of portable air defence systems. In particular, the export supplies of the portable air defence systems only to the governments of other countries or the agents, which are empowered concretely to act on behalf of the government, are permitted. The violation of the principles of the decision comes under the effect of penalty sanctions, including those related to criminal persecution.
============
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@
============
Itar-Tass
October 24, 2012
Syrian militants have various air defence systems, including U.S. Stinger
MOSCOW: Syrian militants are armed with portable air defence systems produced in other countries, including the United States, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Gen. Nikolai Makarov told reporters on Wednesday.
“The General Staff has information that the militants, who are fighting against Syrian government troops, are armed with the portable air defence systems of various countries, including the Stinger of U.S. production,” he underlined.
Commenting on some media reports that the Obama administration gave instructions to pass on a batch of the portable air defence systems to the formations of the unappeasable Syrian opposition, Makarov said, “The US denies this fact, they say that they did not deliver anything to them (Syrian militants). However, we have reliable information that Syrian militants are armed with foreign portable air defence systems, including U.S. air defence systems.
“It is necessary to find out who supplied it to them,” the chief of the Russian General Staff said. “For this purpose all types of transport can be used, including civil airlines,” he said.
On October 17, a Syrian source stated that the U.S. allegedly decided to pass to Syrian militants a batch of portable air defence systems. “President Barack Obama, who was speaking not quite well at the first round of the debates compared to his rival Mitt Romney, prepared a ‘strong’ card. He gave instructions to pass the air defence systems to formations of the unappeasable Syrian opposition,” he told journalists.
However, the U.S. did not confirm the reliability of this information. Spokesperson of the U.S. State Department Victoria Nuland stated on October 18 that she cannot confirm anything like that.
Under the OSCE Strategy to Address Threats to Security and Stability in the twenty-first century approved in Maastricht in 2003 the organization uses all available instruments for counteracting the proliferation of the air defence systems.
According to the decision taken at the OSCE forum for security cooperation number 3/04 in May 2004 and approved by the OSCE Council of Ministers at the end of the same year, the OSCE states, including the U.S., that it is committed to contribute to the use of efficient and comprehensive mechanisms for the export control of portable air defence systems. In particular, the export supplies of the portable air defence systems only to the governments of other countries or the agents, which are empowered concretely to act on behalf of the government, are permitted. The violation of the principles of the decision comes under the effect of penalty sanctions, including those related to criminal persecution.
============
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@
============
Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:12 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
October 24, 2012
Hey, hey, Mr. President, how many kids have been killed in AfPak?
Boris Volkhonsky
====
The total number of casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan in direct war-related violence is estimated at up to 128,500. The number does not include indirect deaths caused by loss of access to food, water and infrastructure. Plus a recent UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported documents about 500,000 Pakistanis who are living outside of their homes as a result of warfare.
====
As reported by Reuters, Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday condemned a NATO operation that he said killed four children in the country's east.
"Despite repeated pledges by NATO to avoid civilian casualties, innocent lives, including those of children, are still being lost," Karzai said in the statement.
The report does not sound like anything outstanding – reports like this one have been appearing lately with an accelerated frequency. But in this case, despite the general practice of denying any wrongdoing, a spokeswoman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said it was aware of possible ISAF-related civilian casualties from the operation in the Baraki Barak district of Logar province last Saturday.
At the same time, the spokeswoman for ISAF presented figures intended to demonstrate that there was a 58 percent decrease in the number of ISAF-caused civilian casualties in July-September of this year compared to the same period in 2011.
Indeed, the whole issue of statistics of the kind is more than tricky. More often than not, to avoid showing the real numbers, the US and NATO officials tend to label all those killed as militants, thus drastically reducing the number of civilian casualties. Most probably in this case, when children were killed, playing this trick became impossible.
The eleventh anniversary of the Afghan operation gave analysts an opportunity to try to evaluate the total number of casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan (the so called AfPak) within this period. The Huffington Post has published a piece written by two US scholars, Neta C. Crawford from Boston University and Catherine Lutz from Brown University. The figures they present speak for themselves.
The number of foreign troops and military contractors is calculated more or less accurately. During the 11 years of war, more than 2,130 Americans and more than 1,065 other ISAF military and 1,284 US military contractors have been killed. The picture is much worse for Afghans and Pakistanis. What is striking in the study is the fact that though the war is going on in Afghanistan, the number of casualties among Pakistanis (including civilians) is even higher. This can be ascribed to the excessive use of drones.
The number of militants killed is estimated at 15,000 to 25,000 for Afghanistan and 25,000 for Pakistan. The number of civilian casualties is almost the same or even higher – 15,500 to 17,400 for Afghanistan and 14,780 to 43,150 for Pakistan. The total number of casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan in direct war-related violence is estimated at up to 128,500. The number does not include indirect deaths caused by loss of access to food, water and infrastructure. Plus a recent UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported documents about 500,000 Pakistanis who are living outside of their homes as a result of warfare.
Now the big question that arises from the deplorable statistics is – what's next? Plans for the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan have been announced and have not been rejected yet, although it is truly impossible to believe that the US is going to abandon the vital strategic region. But, as the authors in the Huffington Post point out, "the current plan is to pull US troops out of Afghanistan in 2014, but there is no plan to halt military assistance to Pakistan or US drone strikes there," and "withdrawal from Afghanistan will likely leave a war in place in Pakistan."
What kind of war this is going to be is another question. It is hard to imagine that the US strategists – whatever their appetites may be – would venture on a new war against a nuclear country like Pakistan. But the outlines of their future (or, better say, continuing) operation there have been made clear both by previous experience and recent developments.
The use of drones, widely criticized by the Western public and experts, and raising outrage in AfPak is probably the main method the US and its allies will rely upon in future warfare. It allows for diminishing the number of allied military killed down to zero, while effectively inflicting devastating damage to manpower and infrastructure of the targeted country.
In a sign of proof of such a supposition, on Monday London's The Guardian revealed that the Royal Air Force is going to double the number of armed drones flying combat and surveillance operations in Afghanistan and the aircraft will be controlled from terminals and screens in Britain. The report came against the background of other widely publicized reports that the UK government is going to speed up the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan.
So, the withdrawal in no way means the end of the war. The war must go on – though in a much more cowardly manner.
Back in the 1960s, American students and professors, who were fed up with the ongoing Vietnam War chanted, addressing President Lyndon Johnson, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?" It seems the time has come to come up with another slogan of the kind.
============
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
October 24, 2012
Hey, hey, Mr. President, how many kids have been killed in AfPak?
Boris Volkhonsky
====
The total number of casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan in direct war-related violence is estimated at up to 128,500. The number does not include indirect deaths caused by loss of access to food, water and infrastructure. Plus a recent UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported documents about 500,000 Pakistanis who are living outside of their homes as a result of warfare.
====
As reported by Reuters, Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday condemned a NATO operation that he said killed four children in the country's east.
"Despite repeated pledges by NATO to avoid civilian casualties, innocent lives, including those of children, are still being lost," Karzai said in the statement.
The report does not sound like anything outstanding – reports like this one have been appearing lately with an accelerated frequency. But in this case, despite the general practice of denying any wrongdoing, a spokeswoman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said it was aware of possible ISAF-related civilian casualties from the operation in the Baraki Barak district of Logar province last Saturday.
At the same time, the spokeswoman for ISAF presented figures intended to demonstrate that there was a 58 percent decrease in the number of ISAF-caused civilian casualties in July-September of this year compared to the same period in 2011.
Indeed, the whole issue of statistics of the kind is more than tricky. More often than not, to avoid showing the real numbers, the US and NATO officials tend to label all those killed as militants, thus drastically reducing the number of civilian casualties. Most probably in this case, when children were killed, playing this trick became impossible.
The eleventh anniversary of the Afghan operation gave analysts an opportunity to try to evaluate the total number of casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan (the so called AfPak) within this period. The Huffington Post has published a piece written by two US scholars, Neta C. Crawford from Boston University and Catherine Lutz from Brown University. The figures they present speak for themselves.
The number of foreign troops and military contractors is calculated more or less accurately. During the 11 years of war, more than 2,130 Americans and more than 1,065 other ISAF military and 1,284 US military contractors have been killed. The picture is much worse for Afghans and Pakistanis. What is striking in the study is the fact that though the war is going on in Afghanistan, the number of casualties among Pakistanis (including civilians) is even higher. This can be ascribed to the excessive use of drones.
The number of militants killed is estimated at 15,000 to 25,000 for Afghanistan and 25,000 for Pakistan. The number of civilian casualties is almost the same or even higher – 15,500 to 17,400 for Afghanistan and 14,780 to 43,150 for Pakistan. The total number of casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan in direct war-related violence is estimated at up to 128,500. The number does not include indirect deaths caused by loss of access to food, water and infrastructure. Plus a recent UN High Commissioner for Refugees reported documents about 500,000 Pakistanis who are living outside of their homes as a result of warfare.
Now the big question that arises from the deplorable statistics is – what's next? Plans for the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan have been announced and have not been rejected yet, although it is truly impossible to believe that the US is going to abandon the vital strategic region. But, as the authors in the Huffington Post point out, "the current plan is to pull US troops out of Afghanistan in 2014, but there is no plan to halt military assistance to Pakistan or US drone strikes there," and "withdrawal from Afghanistan will likely leave a war in place in Pakistan."
What kind of war this is going to be is another question. It is hard to imagine that the US strategists – whatever their appetites may be – would venture on a new war against a nuclear country like Pakistan. But the outlines of their future (or, better say, continuing) operation there have been made clear both by previous experience and recent developments.
The use of drones, widely criticized by the Western public and experts, and raising outrage in AfPak is probably the main method the US and its allies will rely upon in future warfare. It allows for diminishing the number of allied military killed down to zero, while effectively inflicting devastating damage to manpower and infrastructure of the targeted country.
In a sign of proof of such a supposition, on Monday London's The Guardian revealed that the Royal Air Force is going to double the number of armed drones flying combat and surveillance operations in Afghanistan and the aircraft will be controlled from terminals and screens in Britain. The report came against the background of other widely publicized reports that the UK government is going to speed up the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan.
So, the withdrawal in no way means the end of the war. The war must go on – though in a much more cowardly manner.
Back in the 1960s, American students and professors, who were fed up with the ongoing Vietnam War chanted, addressing President Lyndon Johnson, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?" It seems the time has come to come up with another slogan of the kind.
============
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@
============
Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:20 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rt.com/
RT
October 24, 2012
Siege of Bani Walid, Day 20: ‘Militia committing genocide’ – RT source
====
[T]he UN has taken no action to curb the ongoing violence. Russia attempted to propose a draft statement calling for a peaceful end to the violence in Bani Walid, but was blocked by the US.
“There is no government in Libya, only armed groups and all of them are under Al-Qaeda control.”
====
Bani Walid, Libya, has been under siege for nearly three consecutive weeks. A man whose family is in the besieged city spoke with RT, and described the horrors allegedly taking place: Civilians are killed every day by toxic gas and heavy tank fire.
Bani Walid, the last stronghold for supporters of deceased Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi, has been under siege for 20 days, with no resolution to the conflict in sight.
RT has learned that militias are reportedly shelling the city indiscriminately, with footage from Bani Walid showing dead bodies, and women and children with missing limbs and disfigured faces.
A man named Faraj, who is currently in Egypt but is in contact with relatives in Bani Walid, spoke with RT and claimed that the militias are committing genocide.
Militias have reportedly encircled Bani Walid, and are not allowing any supplies into the town including food, water, medicine or humanitarian aid. The town’s electricity and gas has also allegedly been cut off.
‘Massacre in Bali Walid’
Faraj told RT that “the city has been exposed to genocide from Misrata militias that are cooperating with Al-Qaeda groups.”
Several graphic clips published on YouTube claim to show the brutal aftermath of the recent shelling in Bani Walid.
“They attack the city and are using heavy machinery to demolish the houses,” Faraj said. “They are using internationally banned toxic gases against civilian people and they bombard the population with tanks.”
Government-affiliat
“There is bloodshed in Bani Walid and nobody can hear the people inside the city. [The] militias’ guns come from the outside including from Sarkozy and Obama’s administrations.”
The siege was prompted by troops seeking to arrest those responsible for the death of Omran Shaaban – the man credited with capturing Gaddafi last year. The Warfalla tribe controlling Bani Walid was accused of kidnapping and torturing Shaaban.
UN fails to act
“We hope media will come to Bani Walid to see the truth for themselves and report on the story,” Faraj said. “Right now, the information that is coming out is lies and forgery.”
“We plea for the humanitarian agencies of the world to help us save our families inside Bani Walid. The people need immediate help and an intervention from the outside,” he said.
So far, the UN has taken no action to curb the ongoing violence. Russia attempted to propose a draft statement calling for a peaceful end to the violence in Bani Walid, but was blocked by the US.
“There is no government in Libya, only armed groups and all of them are under Al-Qaeda control,” Faraj said. “The situation is very dangerous and there is no control from [the] government.”
Barry Lando, an analyst of Arab issues, recently told RT that the main power in Libya is bands of armed militias.
“Now you have hundreds of militias, many of them heavily armed,” Lando said. “Hundreds of thousands – maybe millions – of weapons are out there; more weapons than people. The new government seems to be standing there looking at what’s happening around them, nearly powerless to do much about it.”
And since the country is awash with weapons, the violence seems unlikely to end anytime soon.
“Despite the setting up of an interim government in Libya with the backing of the US, the country is still very much troubled by tribalism, tribal confrontations, confrontations between pro-Gaddafi and anti-Gaddafi forces, and it is not expected that law and order and peace and development can be restored to the country within a very short period of time,” Joseph Cheng, political analyst and professor at Hong Kong University, told RT.
The fragile new Libyan government experienced disarray at the outset when its Congress dismissed Mustafa Abushagur – the first prime minister to be elected since the uprising – for failing to form a new Cabinet.
The country’s new Prime Minister, Ali Zaidan, is now also in danger of losing his post if the Libyan National Congress rejects his proposed cabinet – a firing that could further weaken the perceived legitimacy of the new government.
============
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@
============
RT
October 24, 2012
Siege of Bani Walid, Day 20: ‘Militia committing genocide’ – RT source
====
[T]he UN has taken no action to curb the ongoing violence. Russia attempted to propose a draft statement calling for a peaceful end to the violence in Bani Walid, but was blocked by the US.
“There is no government in Libya, only armed groups and all of them are under Al-Qaeda control.”
====
Bani Walid, Libya, has been under siege for nearly three consecutive weeks. A man whose family is in the besieged city spoke with RT, and described the horrors allegedly taking place: Civilians are killed every day by toxic gas and heavy tank fire.
Bani Walid, the last stronghold for supporters of deceased Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi, has been under siege for 20 days, with no resolution to the conflict in sight.
RT has learned that militias are reportedly shelling the city indiscriminately, with footage from Bani Walid showing dead bodies, and women and children with missing limbs and disfigured faces.
A man named Faraj, who is currently in Egypt but is in contact with relatives in Bani Walid, spoke with RT and claimed that the militias are committing genocide.
Militias have reportedly encircled Bani Walid, and are not allowing any supplies into the town including food, water, medicine or humanitarian aid. The town’s electricity and gas has also allegedly been cut off.
‘Massacre in Bali Walid’
Faraj told RT that “the city has been exposed to genocide from Misrata militias that are cooperating with Al-Qaeda groups.”
Several graphic clips published on YouTube claim to show the brutal aftermath of the recent shelling in Bani Walid.
“They attack the city and are using heavy machinery to demolish the houses,” Faraj said. “They are using internationally banned toxic gases against civilian people and they bombard the population with tanks.”
Government-affiliat
“There is bloodshed in Bani Walid and nobody can hear the people inside the city. [The] militias’ guns come from the outside including from Sarkozy and Obama’s administrations.”
The siege was prompted by troops seeking to arrest those responsible for the death of Omran Shaaban – the man credited with capturing Gaddafi last year. The Warfalla tribe controlling Bani Walid was accused of kidnapping and torturing Shaaban.
UN fails to act
“We hope media will come to Bani Walid to see the truth for themselves and report on the story,” Faraj said. “Right now, the information that is coming out is lies and forgery.”
“We plea for the humanitarian agencies of the world to help us save our families inside Bani Walid. The people need immediate help and an intervention from the outside,” he said.
So far, the UN has taken no action to curb the ongoing violence. Russia attempted to propose a draft statement calling for a peaceful end to the violence in Bani Walid, but was blocked by the US.
“There is no government in Libya, only armed groups and all of them are under Al-Qaeda control,” Faraj said. “The situation is very dangerous and there is no control from [the] government.”
Barry Lando, an analyst of Arab issues, recently told RT that the main power in Libya is bands of armed militias.
“Now you have hundreds of militias, many of them heavily armed,” Lando said. “Hundreds of thousands – maybe millions – of weapons are out there; more weapons than people. The new government seems to be standing there looking at what’s happening around them, nearly powerless to do much about it.”
And since the country is awash with weapons, the violence seems unlikely to end anytime soon.
“Despite the setting up of an interim government in Libya with the backing of the US, the country is still very much troubled by tribalism, tribal confrontations, confrontations between pro-Gaddafi and anti-Gaddafi forces, and it is not expected that law and order and peace and development can be restored to the country within a very short period of time,” Joseph Cheng, political analyst and professor at Hong Kong University, told RT.
The fragile new Libyan government experienced disarray at the outset when its Congress dismissed Mustafa Abushagur – the first prime minister to be elected since the uprising – for failing to form a new Cabinet.
The country’s new Prime Minister, Ali Zaidan, is now also in danger of losing his post if the Libyan National Congress rejects his proposed cabinet – a firing that could further weaken the perceived legitimacy of the new government.
============
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@
============
Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:20 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.globalti
Global Times
October 24, 2012
Obama and Romney identical twins regarding foreign policy
By Joshua Gass
====
At one point, Obama claimed that the US "remains the one indispensable nation" in the world, a claim that is startlingly jingoistic, if it means anything at all.
The issue of the bloated US military budget went totally unquestioned throughout the debate. Further, neither candidate would address the basic assumption of this overspending, that the US needs to retain its position as the leader of global politics.
====
The amazing thing about Tuesday's presidential debate was the overwhelming amount of agreement between the candidates. At times, it hardly seemed like a debate at all. Both candidates incessantly pictured the US as the world's greatest military and moral power, beleaguered by threats from abroad.
Even the moderator participated in this depiction, opening the proceedings by noting that the debate marked the 50th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, "a sobering reminder that every president faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad."
This comment also highlights a major shift in global politics. The entire debate was dominated by discussion of the Middle East and, to a lesser extent, China. Other regions were mentioned only in passing. Obama even made fun of Romney for referring to Russia as a "geopolitical threat" in an earlier speech.
Despite these massive shifts in global politics, neither candidate deviated from a conventional vision of the world order, with the US as its dominant power.
Both promised to be tough and uncompromising in pursuing US interests, and noble and fair-minded in efforts to spread democracy.
At no time did either candidate suggest that there might be any contradiction between morality and US interests.
The candidates agreed on Pakistan, the use of drone strikes in the Middle East, Iran policy, and US relations with Israel and China. Each candidate emphasized the need to both "cooperate with" and "lead" other nations.
Throughout, Romney tried to portray Obama as not being tough enough with other nations, and Obama tried to cast Romney as inconsistent and inexperienced, but the complete unanimity on all major foreign policy issues overshadowed these arguments.
The effort to maintain this unified stance created a certain amount of incoherence.
Romney suggested that the purpose of US foreign policy is "to go after the bad guys" but also to get the "the Muslim world to be able to reject extremism on its own." And both candidates cited women's rights as a justification for US involvement in the Middle East.
At one point, Obama claimed that the US "remains the one indispensable nation" in the world, a claim that is startlingly jingoistic, if it means anything at all.
This unanimous depiction of US supremacy continued where the candidates spoke about relations with China. Each candidate recycled his positions from the previous debate, arguing that Chinese trade practices need to be controlled in order to "level the playing field" between US and Chinese companies and ignoring US responsibility for the massive trade imbalance between the two countries. China represents the specter of US economic decline, and each candidate must negotiate that fear by emphasizing tough regulation of international trade.
A new aspect of this argument appeared in the context of a foreign policy debate: the effect of US military power on relations with China.
Obama spoke about US military presence in the region "sending a very clear signal that America is a Pacific power" and about his efforts to organize "trade relations with countries other than China so that China starts feeling more pressure about meeting basic international standards."
Romney, for his part, explicitly argued that Chinese cooperation is dependant on recognition of US military and economic power.
The issue of the bloated US military budget went totally unquestioned throughout the debate. Further, neither candidate would address the basic assumption of this overspending, that the US needs to retain its position as the leader of global politics. Obama attacked Romney for wanting to increase military spending, but even Obama advertised the fact that his administration has kept spending at record levels.
At one point, Obama even used a much criticized statistic, that the US spends more on its military than any other nine countries combined, positively to refute Romney's attacks.
To be fair, both candidates did at times emphasize cooperation with other nations. But the simple fact that neither of them suggested that the US needs to reduce military spending, or, reassess its place in the world shows the narrow range of ideas acceptable in mainstream US politics.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, the choice in the US elections is really very little choice at all.
The author is a PhD candidate in Ohio State University.
============
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@
============
Global Times
October 24, 2012
Obama and Romney identical twins regarding foreign policy
By Joshua Gass
====
At one point, Obama claimed that the US "remains the one indispensable nation" in the world, a claim that is startlingly jingoistic, if it means anything at all.
The issue of the bloated US military budget went totally unquestioned throughout the debate. Further, neither candidate would address the basic assumption of this overspending, that the US needs to retain its position as the leader of global politics.
====
The amazing thing about Tuesday's presidential debate was the overwhelming amount of agreement between the candidates. At times, it hardly seemed like a debate at all. Both candidates incessantly pictured the US as the world's greatest military and moral power, beleaguered by threats from abroad.
Even the moderator participated in this depiction, opening the proceedings by noting that the debate marked the 50th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, "a sobering reminder that every president faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad."
This comment also highlights a major shift in global politics. The entire debate was dominated by discussion of the Middle East and, to a lesser extent, China. Other regions were mentioned only in passing. Obama even made fun of Romney for referring to Russia as a "geopolitical threat" in an earlier speech.
Despite these massive shifts in global politics, neither candidate deviated from a conventional vision of the world order, with the US as its dominant power.
Both promised to be tough and uncompromising in pursuing US interests, and noble and fair-minded in efforts to spread democracy.
At no time did either candidate suggest that there might be any contradiction between morality and US interests.
The candidates agreed on Pakistan, the use of drone strikes in the Middle East, Iran policy, and US relations with Israel and China. Each candidate emphasized the need to both "cooperate with" and "lead" other nations.
Throughout, Romney tried to portray Obama as not being tough enough with other nations, and Obama tried to cast Romney as inconsistent and inexperienced, but the complete unanimity on all major foreign policy issues overshadowed these arguments.
The effort to maintain this unified stance created a certain amount of incoherence.
Romney suggested that the purpose of US foreign policy is "to go after the bad guys" but also to get the "the Muslim world to be able to reject extremism on its own." And both candidates cited women's rights as a justification for US involvement in the Middle East.
At one point, Obama claimed that the US "remains the one indispensable nation" in the world, a claim that is startlingly jingoistic, if it means anything at all.
This unanimous depiction of US supremacy continued where the candidates spoke about relations with China. Each candidate recycled his positions from the previous debate, arguing that Chinese trade practices need to be controlled in order to "level the playing field" between US and Chinese companies and ignoring US responsibility for the massive trade imbalance between the two countries. China represents the specter of US economic decline, and each candidate must negotiate that fear by emphasizing tough regulation of international trade.
A new aspect of this argument appeared in the context of a foreign policy debate: the effect of US military power on relations with China.
Obama spoke about US military presence in the region "sending a very clear signal that America is a Pacific power" and about his efforts to organize "trade relations with countries other than China so that China starts feeling more pressure about meeting basic international standards."
Romney, for his part, explicitly argued that Chinese cooperation is dependant on recognition of US military and economic power.
The issue of the bloated US military budget went totally unquestioned throughout the debate. Further, neither candidate would address the basic assumption of this overspending, that the US needs to retain its position as the leader of global politics. Obama attacked Romney for wanting to increase military spending, but even Obama advertised the fact that his administration has kept spending at record levels.
At one point, Obama even used a much criticized statistic, that the US spends more on its military than any other nine countries combined, positively to refute Romney's attacks.
To be fair, both candidates did at times emphasize cooperation with other nations. But the simple fact that neither of them suggested that the US needs to reduce military spending, or, reassess its place in the world shows the narrow range of ideas acceptable in mainstream US politics.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, the choice in the US elections is really very little choice at all.
The author is a PhD candidate in Ohio State University.
============
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@
============
Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:20 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://news.
Xinhua News Agency
October 24, 2012
9 killed, 25 injured in Afghan night raid operation
CHAGHCHARAN, Afghanistan: Nine people were killed and 25 wounded in an overnight operation launched by Afghan and the NATO-led coalition troops in the western province of Ghor, a provincial official said Wednesday, adding that local residents said most victims were civilians.
"According to initial reports by our security forces, nine people were killed and 25 others injured during a night raid operation against militants conducted by Afghan Special Forces supporting by the coalition troops in Sharhrak district overnight," a spokesman for provincial government, Abdul Hai Khatibi, told Xinhua.
After local residents claimed that several women and children were among the casualties, the local government has launched an investigation into the incident to determine whether the killed were militants or civilians, he said.
Meantime, the NATO-led coalition or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) confirmed that the ISAF is aware of reports of possible civilian casualties during the operation in the province 360 km west of Kabul.
"(The) ISAF can confirm an incident early this morning in Shahrak district, Ghor province in which an Afghan and coalition security force killed several insurgents during an operation to detain a Taliban leader," the ISAF's Joint Command said in a text sent to Xinhua via email.
...
Three civilians were accidentally killed during an operation in eastern Logar province over the weekend, Afghan and coalition forces said.
The deaths of civilians by NATO-led troops during operations against Taliban fighting Afghan and about 100,000 coalition forces have long been a contentious issue between the Afghan government and U.S. and NATO forces in the insurgency-hit country.
Afghan officials had in the past stressed such deaths would further undermine the war against Taliban and terrorist groups and inflame an anti-foreign sentiment in the country.
A total of 1,145 Afghan civilians were killed and 1,954 injured in conflicts in the first six months of 2012...
------------
http://www.pajhwok.
Pajhwok Afghan News
October 24, 2012
Civilians among 9 killed in Ghor raid
By Muhammad Hassan Hakimion
CHAGHCHARAN: Nine supporters of an armed commander, Mullah Mustafa, were killed during an airstrike by foreign troops in the Shahrak district of western Ghor province, an official said on Wednesday.
The raid was carried on Mustafa’s residence in the Dahan-i-Morgha area of the district on Tuesday night, Governor Syed Anwar Rahmati told Pajhwok Afghan News. But Mustafa, who allegedly has links to the Taliban, escaped unhurt in the raid, he said.
One of the commander’s associates, Qayamuddin, said eight people were killed and as many injured in the airstrike. Most of the victims were Mustafa’s family members.
A statement from International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), meanwhile, confirmed the incident, in which an Afghan and coalition security force killed several insurgents.
“ISAF is aware of reports of possible civilian casualties resulting from this operation. It takes all allegations of civilian casualties seriously, and is assessing the facts surrounding this incident.”
============
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
October 24, 2012
9 killed, 25 injured in Afghan night raid operation
CHAGHCHARAN, Afghanistan: Nine people were killed and 25 wounded in an overnight operation launched by Afghan and the NATO-led coalition troops in the western province of Ghor, a provincial official said Wednesday, adding that local residents said most victims were civilians.
"According to initial reports by our security forces, nine people were killed and 25 others injured during a night raid operation against militants conducted by Afghan Special Forces supporting by the coalition troops in Sharhrak district overnight," a spokesman for provincial government, Abdul Hai Khatibi, told Xinhua.
After local residents claimed that several women and children were among the casualties, the local government has launched an investigation into the incident to determine whether the killed were militants or civilians, he said.
Meantime, the NATO-led coalition or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) confirmed that the ISAF is aware of reports of possible civilian casualties during the operation in the province 360 km west of Kabul.
"(The) ISAF can confirm an incident early this morning in Shahrak district, Ghor province in which an Afghan and coalition security force killed several insurgents during an operation to detain a Taliban leader," the ISAF's Joint Command said in a text sent to Xinhua via email.
...
Three civilians were accidentally killed during an operation in eastern Logar province over the weekend, Afghan and coalition forces said.
The deaths of civilians by NATO-led troops during operations against Taliban fighting Afghan and about 100,000 coalition forces have long been a contentious issue between the Afghan government and U.S. and NATO forces in the insurgency-hit country.
Afghan officials had in the past stressed such deaths would further undermine the war against Taliban and terrorist groups and inflame an anti-foreign sentiment in the country.
A total of 1,145 Afghan civilians were killed and 1,954 injured in conflicts in the first six months of 2012...
------------
http://www.pajhwok.
Pajhwok Afghan News
October 24, 2012
Civilians among 9 killed in Ghor raid
By Muhammad Hassan Hakimion
CHAGHCHARAN: Nine supporters of an armed commander, Mullah Mustafa, were killed during an airstrike by foreign troops in the Shahrak district of western Ghor province, an official said on Wednesday.
The raid was carried on Mustafa’s residence in the Dahan-i-Morgha area of the district on Tuesday night, Governor Syed Anwar Rahmati told Pajhwok Afghan News. But Mustafa, who allegedly has links to the Taliban, escaped unhurt in the raid, he said.
One of the commander’s associates, Qayamuddin, said eight people were killed and as many injured in the airstrike. Most of the victims were Mustafa’s family members.
A statement from International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), meanwhile, confirmed the incident, in which an Afghan and coalition security force killed several insurgents.
“ISAF is aware of reports of possible civilian casualties resulting from this operation. It takes all allegations of civilian casualties seriously, and is assessing the facts surrounding this incident.”
============
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@
============
Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:20 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
October 23, 2012
US blocks Russia’s Bani Walid peace draft
The United States has blocked Russia's draft statement on a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the Libyan town of Bani Walid.
The city has been seeing clashes since last week and Russia's statement called for peace.
Russia’s permanent envoy to the UN Vitaly Churkin said that the US behaved oddly blocking a call for peace especially after four US diplomats, including the Ambassador, had been killed in Libya’s Benghazi. He added that the U.S. delegation’s behavior defied reasonable explanation.
------------
http://rt.com/
RT
October 24, 2012
US blocks Russia's draft statement in UN on peaceful resolution of Bani Walid violence
====
“Blocking a draft statement that called to solve the country’s political problems without violence is very strange,” Churkin said. “This is a case when it is difficult to explain the US delegation’s actions in rational terms.”
====
The United States has blocked a draft statement, proposed by Russia, on the resolution of violence in the Libyan town of Bani Walid, which has been under siege for weeks. The statement called for a peaceful solution to the conflict.
Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vitaly Churkin said the move “can't be serious,” reminding the American delegation of the deadly attack in Benghazi that claimed the lives of four US diplomats in September.
“Blocking a draft statement that called to solve the country’s political problems without violence is very strange,” Churkin said. “This is a case when it is difficult to explain the US delegation’s actions in rational terms.”
The statement drafted by Russia on Bani Walid called on the Libyan authorities “to take urgent steps to resolve the conflict by peaceful means and to preserve the rights of all Libyan citizens.” It also expressed concern about the significant escalation of violence in and around the city of Bani Walid in recent days.
...
Reports from the small town indicate innocent civilians are becoming the victims of fighting between pro-government forces and Gaddafi loyalists.
The latest round of fighting was provoked by the death of Omran Shaaban, the rebel from Misrata credited with capturing Muammar Gaddafi, who was hiding in a drain pipe in Sirte on October 20, 2011. He died on September 25 after two months’ detention in Bani Walid.
Pro-government forces and militias besieged the town in order to find those responsible for the death of “the hero of a new Libya,” as Shaaban was dubbed.
Bani Walid commanders accuse pro-government troops and militias of “shelling the town with long-range weapons and even targeting the hospital.”
A local resident currently residing in Italy, but whose family remains in the town, told RT the current shelling of the town is Misrata militias’ attempt to “eliminate” it. He claims that initially the government called for an end to the violence, but later came up with a call to “clean Bani Walid.”
The UN Security Council has also discussed a possible meeting with envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri, Churkin said. But it remains unclear when he will be able to speak, even via video link.
Earlier on Tuesday, the Security Council also postponed the adoption of another two draft statements proposed by Russia. The first condemned a terrorist attack in Damascus on October 21 which caused numerous civilian deaths and injuries. The second called on both the government and the rebels to agree to a ceasefire during the Muslim holiday of Eid Al Adha, to allow the people to observe it in peace and security. Eid Al Adha starts on October 25 and lasts for three days.
Russia’s call for a ceasefire coincides with similar efforts by international peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to persuade Syrians to agree to a ceasefire during the holiday.
Brahimi left Syria on Tuesday, after finishing a four-day visit aimed at getting support for his proposal for an end to violence there.
------------
http://www.itar-
Itar-Tass
October 23, 2012
Russia initiates UN Security Council consultations on Syria and Libya
UNITED NATIONS: Russia has initiated consultations on the situation in Syria and Libya at the UN Security Council today, a well-informed source at the UN headquarters told Itar-Tass.
In the course of the consultations, the participants will consider three draft statements proposed by Russia – on support for the armistice in Syria proposed by the UN and Arab League’s special representative Lakhdar Brahimi, on the October 21 terrorist act in Damascus and on the situation in the Libyan city of Bani Walid.
“The delegation of a Western country has asked the Security Council to put off the deadline for decision-making on the issues so as to be able to have discussions with its capital and the Russian delegation initiated consultations on them in the meantime,” the sources said.
The Security Council is due to begin its meeting at 10:00 hours EDST /18:00 MSK/.
The two draft statements submitted by Russia condemn the terrorist act in Damascus and urge the Syrian government and the opposition for an armistice during the feast of Id al Adha /October 26 through to October 28/.
The draft statement for the mass media on the situation in Libya expresses serious concern over the situation in the Libyan city of Bani Walid, which was swept by armed clashes last week, and advises the Libyan authorities on an earliest possible settlement of the conflict by peaceful means.
============
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
October 23, 2012
US blocks Russia’s Bani Walid peace draft
The United States has blocked Russia's draft statement on a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the Libyan town of Bani Walid.
The city has been seeing clashes since last week and Russia's statement called for peace.
Russia’s permanent envoy to the UN Vitaly Churkin said that the US behaved oddly blocking a call for peace especially after four US diplomats, including the Ambassador, had been killed in Libya’s Benghazi. He added that the U.S. delegation’s behavior defied reasonable explanation.
------------
http://rt.com/
RT
October 24, 2012
US blocks Russia's draft statement in UN on peaceful resolution of Bani Walid violence
====
“Blocking a draft statement that called to solve the country’s political problems without violence is very strange,” Churkin said. “This is a case when it is difficult to explain the US delegation’s actions in rational terms.”
====
The United States has blocked a draft statement, proposed by Russia, on the resolution of violence in the Libyan town of Bani Walid, which has been under siege for weeks. The statement called for a peaceful solution to the conflict.
Russia’s envoy to the UN, Vitaly Churkin said the move “can't be serious,” reminding the American delegation of the deadly attack in Benghazi that claimed the lives of four US diplomats in September.
“Blocking a draft statement that called to solve the country’s political problems without violence is very strange,” Churkin said. “This is a case when it is difficult to explain the US delegation’s actions in rational terms.”
The statement drafted by Russia on Bani Walid called on the Libyan authorities “to take urgent steps to resolve the conflict by peaceful means and to preserve the rights of all Libyan citizens.” It also expressed concern about the significant escalation of violence in and around the city of Bani Walid in recent days.
...
Reports from the small town indicate innocent civilians are becoming the victims of fighting between pro-government forces and Gaddafi loyalists.
The latest round of fighting was provoked by the death of Omran Shaaban, the rebel from Misrata credited with capturing Muammar Gaddafi, who was hiding in a drain pipe in Sirte on October 20, 2011. He died on September 25 after two months’ detention in Bani Walid.
Pro-government forces and militias besieged the town in order to find those responsible for the death of “the hero of a new Libya,” as Shaaban was dubbed.
Bani Walid commanders accuse pro-government troops and militias of “shelling the town with long-range weapons and even targeting the hospital.”
A local resident currently residing in Italy, but whose family remains in the town, told RT the current shelling of the town is Misrata militias’ attempt to “eliminate” it. He claims that initially the government called for an end to the violence, but later came up with a call to “clean Bani Walid.”
The UN Security Council has also discussed a possible meeting with envoy to Libya Tarek Mitri, Churkin said. But it remains unclear when he will be able to speak, even via video link.
Earlier on Tuesday, the Security Council also postponed the adoption of another two draft statements proposed by Russia. The first condemned a terrorist attack in Damascus on October 21 which caused numerous civilian deaths and injuries. The second called on both the government and the rebels to agree to a ceasefire during the Muslim holiday of Eid Al Adha, to allow the people to observe it in peace and security. Eid Al Adha starts on October 25 and lasts for three days.
Russia’s call for a ceasefire coincides with similar efforts by international peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to persuade Syrians to agree to a ceasefire during the holiday.
Brahimi left Syria on Tuesday, after finishing a four-day visit aimed at getting support for his proposal for an end to violence there.
------------
http://www.itar-
Itar-Tass
October 23, 2012
Russia initiates UN Security Council consultations on Syria and Libya
UNITED NATIONS: Russia has initiated consultations on the situation in Syria and Libya at the UN Security Council today, a well-informed source at the UN headquarters told Itar-Tass.
In the course of the consultations, the participants will consider three draft statements proposed by Russia – on support for the armistice in Syria proposed by the UN and Arab League’s special representative Lakhdar Brahimi, on the October 21 terrorist act in Damascus and on the situation in the Libyan city of Bani Walid.
“The delegation of a Western country has asked the Security Council to put off the deadline for decision-making on the issues so as to be able to have discussions with its capital and the Russian delegation initiated consultations on them in the meantime,” the sources said.
The Security Council is due to begin its meeting at 10:00 hours EDST /18:00 MSK/.
The two draft statements submitted by Russia condemn the terrorist act in Damascus and urge the Syrian government and the opposition for an armistice during the feast of Id al Adha /October 26 through to October 28/.
The draft statement for the mass media on the situation in Libya expresses serious concern over the situation in the Libyan city of Bani Walid, which was swept by armed clashes last week, and advises the Libyan authorities on an earliest possible settlement of the conflict by peaceful means.
============
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@
============
Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:12 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.china.
China.org.cn
October 23, 2012
Turkey unlikely to wage a war against Syria
By Yu Yi
Edited by RR
====
With the authorization of Turkish the parliament on the use of force and the support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), war is most likely to break out.
[A]s allies of Syria, Iran, Russia and Iraq will not stand idle.
Syria still has a strong military capability, so Turkey must be ready to endure the possible devastating consequences if war does break out.
====
Whether the limited military conflict along the Syrian-Turkish border will evolve into a war has drawn wide attention around the world.
Some media outlets said that Turkey has always been supporting Syrian rebels resorting to the regional and international communities to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad and resolve the Syrian crisis ultimately. However, the goal has not yet been realized until now and the seesaw battle still remains between Syrian government forces and the opposition. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that a war should be waged to finish the regime of Bashar.
Are Syria and Turkey being pushed to the brink of war? Some media outlets believe that Turkey’s harsher stance on Syria merely aims to send a "tough" signal to the Syrian regime, which indicates that Turkey will not wage a war against Syria. However, others believe that Turkish policies on the Syrian crisis are based on the intended purpose of overthrowing the current Syrian regime so the relations of the two countries cannot be retrieved. With the authorization of Turkish the parliament on the use of force and the support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), war is most likely to break out.
Turkey’s attempt to undertake military operations against Syria is restricted by many factors. Firstly, countries such as Russia and Iran support the Syrian people in solving the crisis by themselves and oppose foreign intervention, while Western countries have not overtly proposed to resolve the Syrian crisis through external military intervention. Secondly, if Turkey starts a war, the Arab world will be worried about whether the Ottoman Empire is coming back, which exerts a negative impact on the image of Turkey. Thirdly, once the war occurs, the Syrian regime will back the Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan (PKK) to attack Turkey, thus causing an explosion of the domestic situation in Turkey.
In addition, Turkey must take several factors into consideration before waging a war against Syria. First, as allies of Syria, Iran, Russia and Iraq will not stand idle. Iran asserts that the security of the Syrian regime is closely related to the stability of Iran. Russia says it will veto any resolution of the U.N. Security Council on taking military action on Syria.
Second, Turkey should be clearly aware that it is impossible for NATO to coordinate Turkish military operations without the permission of the United States while the approaching presidential election makes it hard for the United States to make decisions on the issue. Thirdly, Syria still has a strong military capability, so Turkey must be ready to endure the possible devastating consequences if war does break out.
============
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@
============
China.org.cn
October 23, 2012
Turkey unlikely to wage a war against Syria
By Yu Yi
Edited by RR
====
With the authorization of Turkish the parliament on the use of force and the support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), war is most likely to break out.
[A]s allies of Syria, Iran, Russia and Iraq will not stand idle.
Syria still has a strong military capability, so Turkey must be ready to endure the possible devastating consequences if war does break out.
====
Whether the limited military conflict along the Syrian-Turkish border will evolve into a war has drawn wide attention around the world.
Some media outlets said that Turkey has always been supporting Syrian rebels resorting to the regional and international communities to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad and resolve the Syrian crisis ultimately. However, the goal has not yet been realized until now and the seesaw battle still remains between Syrian government forces and the opposition. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that a war should be waged to finish the regime of Bashar.
Are Syria and Turkey being pushed to the brink of war? Some media outlets believe that Turkey’s harsher stance on Syria merely aims to send a "tough" signal to the Syrian regime, which indicates that Turkey will not wage a war against Syria. However, others believe that Turkish policies on the Syrian crisis are based on the intended purpose of overthrowing the current Syrian regime so the relations of the two countries cannot be retrieved. With the authorization of Turkish the parliament on the use of force and the support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), war is most likely to break out.
Turkey’s attempt to undertake military operations against Syria is restricted by many factors. Firstly, countries such as Russia and Iran support the Syrian people in solving the crisis by themselves and oppose foreign intervention, while Western countries have not overtly proposed to resolve the Syrian crisis through external military intervention. Secondly, if Turkey starts a war, the Arab world will be worried about whether the Ottoman Empire is coming back, which exerts a negative impact on the image of Turkey. Thirdly, once the war occurs, the Syrian regime will back the Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan (PKK) to attack Turkey, thus causing an explosion of the domestic situation in Turkey.
In addition, Turkey must take several factors into consideration before waging a war against Syria. First, as allies of Syria, Iran, Russia and Iraq will not stand idle. Iran asserts that the security of the Syrian regime is closely related to the stability of Iran. Russia says it will veto any resolution of the U.N. Security Council on taking military action on Syria.
Second, Turkey should be clearly aware that it is impossible for NATO to coordinate Turkish military operations without the permission of the United States while the approaching presidential election makes it hard for the United States to make decisions on the issue. Thirdly, Syria still has a strong military capability, so Turkey must be ready to endure the possible devastating consequences if war does break out.
============
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@
============
Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:29 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.rian.
Russian Information Agency Novosti
October 25, 2012
US to Include S. Korea in its Global Missile Shield - Panetta
WASHINGTON: The United States will continue expanding its global missile shield in Asia, including in South Korea, to counter a possible missile threat from North Korea, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said.
“First of all, with regards to any provocations from the North, I think it's very clear that South Korea and the United States have a strong cooperative relationship and that, when those provocations occur, that we will work together to determine what kind of response should be provided if necessary,” Panetta said after a meeting with his South Korean counterpart Kim Kwan Jin.
The top US defense official said he already agreed with his colleague that both the United States and South Korea will be watching closely after the developments in North Korea.
“With regards to future missile defense, that's an area that we continue to discuss in order to make sure that we have all of the defenses necessary to deal with the missile threat coming from North Korea, and whatever steps are necessary to try to make sure that we're prepared for that,” he said.
“We just deployed, or we just talked about deploying a TPY-2 radar system to Japan specifically in order to protect against that kind of missile threat, and we will continue to work with our friends in the region to further develop that kind of capability,” Panetta added.
Russian Information Agency Novosti
October 25, 2012
US to Include S. Korea in its Global Missile Shield - Panetta
WASHINGTON: The United States will continue expanding its global missile shield in Asia, including in South Korea, to counter a possible missile threat from North Korea, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said.
“First of all, with regards to any provocations from the North, I think it's very clear that South Korea and the United States have a strong cooperative relationship and that, when those provocations occur, that we will work together to determine what kind of response should be provided if necessary,” Panetta said after a meeting with his South Korean counterpart Kim Kwan Jin.
The top US defense official said he already agreed with his colleague that both the United States and South Korea will be watching closely after the developments in North Korea.
“With regards to future missile defense, that's an area that we continue to discuss in order to make sure that we have all of the defenses necessary to deal with the missile threat coming from North Korea, and whatever steps are necessary to try to make sure that we're prepared for that,” he said.
“We just deployed, or we just talked about deploying a TPY-2 radar system to Japan specifically in order to protect against that kind of missile threat, and we will continue to work with our friends in the region to further develop that kind of capability,” Panetta added.
