Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Sunday, 27 September 2015

The European Union Times


Posted: 26 Sep 2015 07:17 AM PDT

A recent media report about Washington’s plans to upgrade nuclear bombs in Western Germany resulted in Russia expressing concern, but the United States denied allegations of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).
On Tuesday, German TV station ZDF cited a Pentagon budget document saying that the US Air Force would deploy modernized B-61 nuclear bombs to Germany’s Buchel air force base this fall in order to replace the 20 weapons already at the site.
Following the announcement, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the possible US move as a potential “violation of the strategic balance in Europe,” that would demand a Russian response.
Moscow expressed concern about the reported nuclear deployment plans, saying this would infringe on the 1970 Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, sanctioned by more than 190 states.
In response to that, the spokesperson of US Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said the deployment of US nuclear weapons in the territories of its NATO allies is “consistent” with all international agreements.
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, DC, spoke to Sputnik regarding this war of words between the two countries.
“The US is not increasing the amount of weapons but upgrading them. Those will double the accuracy of the weapon. It was the European member states that insisted that weapons stay in Europe, whereas the US may have wanted to pull back and focus more on strategic weapons.”
Kristensen went on to say that Germany has had nuclear weapons on its soil since the 1950’s. They are now down to just one base that has now a few weapons left.
“Back in the 70’s the United States used to have 7,000 nuclear weapons in Europe and now we are down to about 180 of them.”
Regarding the heightening tensions between Moscow and Washington, the director said, “All the countries are upgrading their nuclear weapons systems; Russia is upgrading their weapons too. This is not a new program; it has been underway for a long time. What concerns me is that it will feed to the bickering that is going on between Russia, Washington and Brussels these days. I think it’s important to find ways that these modernization programs don’t make things worse in Europe.”
“Russia and the US have slightly different postures but they are both in the business of emphasizing importance of nuclear weapons in Europe and I think that is unfortunate,” the director said.
“We have certainly reduced the importance of nuclear weapons but sadly we are seeing the revitalization of the role of nuclear weapons that people are beginning to talk about them in a different way than they did ten years ago. I think state leaders must take extra steps to try and continue to reduce not only the numbers, but also the role of nuclear weapons,” Kristensen said.
Source
        
Posted: 26 Sep 2015 06:34 AM PDT

According to the Russian Senator Igor Morozov, Beijing has taken decision to take part in combating IS and sent its vessels to the Syrian coast.
Igor Morozov, member of the Russian Federation Committee on International Affairs claimed about the beginning of the military operation by China against the IS terrorists. “It is known, that China has joined our military operation in Syria, the Chinese cruiser has already entered the Mediterranean, aircraft carrier follows it,” Morozov said.
According to him, Iran may soon join the operation carried out by Russia against the IS terrorists, via Hezbollah. Thus, the Russian coalition in the region gains ground, and most reasonable step of the US would be to join it. Although the stance of Moscow and Washington on the ways of settlement of the Syrian conflict differs, nonetheless, low efficiency of the US coalition acts against terrorists is obvious. Islamists have just strengthened their positions.
As Leonid Krutakov told Pravda.Ru in an interview, the most serious conflict is currently taking place namely between China and the US. Moscow may support any party, the expert believes, and that is what will change the world order for many years.
Source
        
Posted: 26 Sep 2015 06:25 AM PDT

The United States plans to undermine Russia’s military buildup in Syria, which is designed to defeat the Daesh (ISIL) terrorist group and help stabilize the country, a US military analyst in California says.
Russia’s military buildup in Syria to stop advances by Daesh and boost the government of President Bashar al-Assad is an “enormously positive move,” said Scott Bennett, a former US Army psychological warfare officer.
“Russia stepping in to stabilize Syria will not only shrink the ISIS enemy threat, but it will lead to stemming the refugee flood that has been afflicting Europe,” Bennett told Press TV on Saturday.
Moscow “is stepping in to do what the US has failed to do in over a year,” Bennett noted, adding that worst yet, the US has financed “mercenaries and kinetic operations” in Syria.
Russia will carry out the military operation without US assistance and discussions because Washington will seek to counter those efforts,” Bennett argued. “The US is going to work to undermine the stabilization of Syria, undermine the stemming of refugees.”
Bennett predicted that Russia’s second step would be to form a coalition of allies in Syria.
A secret US intelligence assessment predicts that Russia will launch military strikes in Syria to boost Assad and stop Daesh advances, The Los Angeles Times reported on Friday.
The intelligence, provided to the White House, says the airstrikes would be carried out by Russian fighter jets that were flown to Syria over the last week.
US officials said Russia moved warplanes to a base near the coastal city of Latakia last week. Russia has also stationed T-90 tanks there, and has increased the number of its military flights to the same airfield.
Syria has been gripped by deadly violence since March 2011. The United States and its regional allies – especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – have been supporting the militants operating inside Syria since the beginning of the crisis.
As Russia steps up its role in Syria, the Obama administration’s strategy has come under scrutiny.
The Pentagon has admitted that a group of US-trained “moderate” militants in Syria has handed over arms and equipment to an al-Qaeda-linked group in the country.
Source
        
Posted: 26 Sep 2015 03:40 AM PDT

The Canadian province of Ontario is moving to ban the terms “mother” and “father” on government forms, an endeavor which follows in line with similar politically correct efforts across the globe.
On Thursday, the Ontario legislature passed a motion which calls for striking the words “mother” and “father” from forms in the name of “inclusiveness.”
“It’s a motion that’s out there to make sure that government is continuing to look at what we can do to progress and make sure forms are inclusive,” said the motion’s sponsor Glenn Thibeault, a Liberal MP from Sudbury, according to the Toronto Sun.
The motion would alter documents, “including, but not limited to replacing the terms ‘mother’ or ‘father’ with terms such as ‘parent’ or ‘guardian’ to better recognize the rights of LGBTQ parents and others,” The Sun reports.
Thibeault insists his motion’s focus is about creating forms which “better reflect the shape of modern families,” reports the National Post.
“This isn’t about banning the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ that was mentioned by some members of the press gallery,” the MP said. “This is about making Ontario more inclusive.”
The move, which will not affect birth certificates, is in the form of a non-binding motion, which would allow the Ontario government to make form changes at their leisure.
But some legislators, such as LGBTQ proponent MPP Cheri DiNovo, would like to see the government uphold “parental equality” by making the motion an official law.
Other members of parliament, however, perceive the move as an underhanded attack on traditional gender and parent roles, and question why more form options, such as “parent” and “guardian,” couldn’t be added.
“While calling for more inclusive language, the member is calling for the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ to be excluded from government forms,” Progressive Conservative MPP Bob Bailey said. “If the member was really serious about being inclusive, he would be asking that words such as ‘parent’ and ‘guardian’ be added — I might add a stress on ‘added’— to government forms, not that the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ be excluded from them.”
“I know everyone here would agree that the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ mean many things to many people and shouldn’t be excluded from government forms or our day-to-day vocabulary,” said Bailey.
Another MP, Patrick Brown, agreed that forms should be inclusive, “But I don’t think you need to exclude the terms mother and father — why not include all the terms and that’s respectful of everyone,” he said.
A survey on the Toronto Sun’s article shows nearly 90% of those polled oppose Thibeault’s motion.

Top voted comments on National Post also reflect the public’s frustration with the attempted authoritarian takeover of language.
“Screw you Ontario,” one person said. “I AM a Mother. I gave BIRTH to my babies. Stop f’ing with MY RIGHTS! I was BORN not MADE. You bunch of stupid twisted sick people. So tired of bowing to sick twisted minds out there. Shame on you!”
Another person decried: “What a waste of time and taxpayer’s dollars! The never ending political correctness thing is getting out of hand IMHO.”
Similar efforts to indoctrinate the public with politically correct terminology have taken place in France, Scotland and here in Massachusetts and California. In 2007, another Canadian province, Nova Scotia, also allowed the alteration of birth certificates for same sex couples to include the terms “spouse” and “other parent.”
Source
        
Posted: 26 Sep 2015 03:28 AM PDT

Over a million liters of a cyanide solution leaked from Barrick Gold’s Veladero mine in Argentina’s western San Juan province – nearly five times more than previously reported. Meanwhile, a judge has lifted a ban on pumping toxic substances at the site.
The Toronto-headquartered mining company initially said it had spilled just 224,000 liters of the toxic liquid into the Potrerillos River. By comparison, an Olympic-sized swimming pool holds 2.5 million liters.
The leak happened when a valve failed and a sliding gate was left open on September 12 at around 8pm local time. Because of the gate problem, the cyanide solution passed through all the emergency pools and into the river.
The solution is used to filtrate gold from processed rocks, which is a fairly common method employed for extracting gold.
On Thursday a federal judge reversed a ban prohibiting Barrick Gold Corp from pumping cyanide solution for the leaching process. The court said that the leak had not contaminated water in the surrounding area.
“The water did not contain cyanide or other contaminating metals, so I decided to lift the cautionary measure,” local television channel TN quoted Judge Pablo Oritja as saying.
Barrick also continues to maintain that the spill had posed no health risks to locals. The company is still working out why the gate malfunctioned. At the same time, a court-ordered investigation concluded that the water was safe to drink in the surrounding towns.
Meanwhile, Greenpeace Argentina has accused San Juan of conspiring with Barrick Gold to “hide” the leak.

Parlamento Por el Agua environmental group also criticized the local government for what they said was an unacceptably slow response to the accident. The group maintains, it took authorities 48 hours to notify the population of the spill.
Federal Judge Oritja said that a special committee had been set up to examine further possible contamination of the region for 30 days.

The imposed ban did not impact the mine’s production because the firm was able to use existing solution that had already been pumped into the leaching system.
The Veladero mine produced 722,000 ounces of gold last year alone and is likely to contribute about 10 percent to Barrick’s total gold output for 2015, RBS Capital said.
Source
        
Posted by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi at 09:32