Archive for July, 2010

Earth younger than previously thought, say scientists

July 12, 2010

BBC News,  12 July 2010

By Victoria Gill, Sceince Reporter
Planet Earth (Image: AP)
Earth could be 70 million years younger than previously thought

A new geological study has set a more accurate age for planet Earth, according to scientists.

Researchers say their investigation shows the Earth is 70 million years younger than the 4.537 billion-year-old planet “we had previously imagined”.

To confirm Earth’s age, the team compared elements in its mantle to those in meteorites that are the same age as the Solar System.

The group reports its findings in the journal Nature Geosciences.

The crux of its conclusion was that the formation of the planet took much longer than previously thought.

Continues >>

Infinite Jest: State Terror From Nixon to Obama

July 12, 2010

Chris Floyd, Empire Burlesque, July 12, 2010

As Arthur Silber pointed out so ably the other day, the high and horrendous crimes that the world’s governments will openly commit — and admit to, if not brag about — in their push for loot and power are by no means the full record of their depredations. This is, as Silber rightly says, “an absolute certainty given the testimony of history.” Indeed. For while we look on, shocked and awed, at the public parade of horrors rolling by each day, there are foul deeds afoot which will only come to light — in dribs and drabs, in shards and splinters –after many decades. (And of course this does not include the countless crimes of elitist power that will never surface, that lie forever buried and rotting with their victims.)

Continues >>

Fidel Castro warns of nuclear war

July 12, 2010

Reuters, July 12, 2010

Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro sits at the National Centre for  Scientific Investigation (CNIC) in Havana July 7, 2010. REUTERS/Alex  Castro

Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro sits at the National Centre for Scientific Investigation (CNIC) in Havana July 7, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Alex Castro

HAVANA (Reuters) – Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who has lived in seclusion since falling ill four years ago, will appear on Cuban television and radio on Monday evening to discuss his theory that the world is on the verge of nuclear war, the Communist Party newspaper Granma said in its Monday online edition.

The appearance will mark the second time in less than a week that the suddenly resurgent 83-year-old has made a public appearance, after staying out of view, except in occasional photographs and videos, since undergoing emergency intestinal surgery in July 2006.

Continues >>

The Thought Police Monopolizes Middle East Public Discourse

July 12, 2010

Middle East Online, July 12, 2010

Like in Orwell’s novel, the contemporary thought policy is intolerant of any independent thinking, fears informed citizens, strikes at potential dissidents forcefully and mercilessly, falsifies history, and classifies the public as either servants or enemies, notes Abbas. J. Ali.


The horror depicted in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty–Four is not a far reaching possibility. The novel is an account of the omnipresent forces of darkness and their imminent and grave threat to liberty and freedom of expression. Nineteen Eighty–Four eloquently maps how the powerful elite works to silence the public, intimidate patriots, incapacitate opposition, falsify evidence and institutionalize fear using every possible means. Orwell’s message is clear that forces of intolerance exist in any society and their presence and menace to civilization must not be discounted.

Nineteen Eighty–Four underscores the fact that neither geography nor time accounts for human setbacks and catastrophes. These might facilitate but are never the sole cause of tragic events; it is the human actors and especially the intolerant elite who instigate this. The latter is not only obsessed with power and its application, but fears informed citizens and freedom of expression. These elite, the creators of the Oceania society, represent what could take place in a western or non-western country.

Continues >>

We Who Advocate Peace

July 12, 2010

By Camillo Mac Bica, Information Clearing House, July 11, 2010

They wage pre-emptive war, occupy and bomb sovereign nations, utilize video-game technology and robotics to murder and then dehumanize hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children as collateral damage. We who advocate peace and justice say that such acts of war and occupation are illegal, immoral and a barbaric and paranoid response to contrived evil . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They chose to avoid military service themselves or had “other priorities” when their Country called, but yet cavalierly send our children, not theirs, to kill and to die in their war for oil and empire. We who advocate peace and justice say that if the threat is real and the peril immanent and grave, then our chickenhawk leaders and their privileged children should be the first to go. Only then will we follow . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They continue to use the fear of terrorism, prey upon the anxiety and distress of the American people post 9/11to “justify” continuing, even escalating, their wars and occupations, and to deny fundamental human liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. We who advocate peace and justice say that the exploitation of a vulnerable citizenry, and the disregard and abuse of basic human rights is Un-American, uncivilized, and a clear violation of the very values they allege to be championing and defending . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They send our military into harm’s way to kill and be killed in pursuit of goals that are ambiguous and ill-defined in an endless war and occupation they sell to the American people and to the world as a response to terrorism. We who advocate peace and justice say that our troops are not cannon fodder; that terrorism is a tactic not an enemy or an ideology; that war, occupation, and the indiscriminate use of violence by the military promotes rather than abrogates the terrorist threat . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They fail to honor their commitment to our Servicemen and Women, “stop loss” deployment after deployment with insufficient dwell time, and provide inadequate resources to meet the medical and readjustment needs of our returning wounded and veterans. We who advocate peace and justice say that providing effective care and treatment for those physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually wounded by war is a moral and legal obligation and should be our first priority. . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They torture prisoners at Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay and “black site” secret prisons around the world, denying “detainees” even the most basic right of Habeas Corpus. We who advocate peace and justice say that such heinous practices as water boarding and unlawful restraint are immoral, violates the U.S. Constitution and International Law, increases the risk that our troops will be ill-treated and tortured should they be captured, and that those who ordered, endorsed, sanctioned, or supported such methods of torture are hypocrites, deviants, and war criminals . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They refused to meet with and comfort the families of our soldiers wounded or killed in battle, denigrate their memory, sacrifice, and dignity by fabricating heroic fantasies of their death and suffering to increase recruitment and bolster support for their senseless war. We who advocate peace and justice say that exploiting the deaths of our soldiers and the grief and suffering of their families in order to mythologize war and lure other young men and women to slaughter is unconscionable and depraved . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They have and continue to award no-bid contracts to favored corporations for personal and political benefit. Contractors who kill without mercy or accountability, whose greed for profit influences decisions of foreign policy, promotes war, and prolongs quagmire. We who advocate peace and justice say that we must heed President Eisenhower’s warning to beware of the military industrial complex, that such corporate cronyism, war profiteering, and political corruption, is criminal, fiscally unsound, and not in our national interest . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They sell America to foreign investors, waste billions of taxpayer dollars on an ever increasing military budget to wage illegal war and occupation and to furnish the weapons of genocide and oppression to dictators and rogue nations around the world. We who advocate peace and justice say that America must end its preoccupation with militarism and war, use its wealth and influence to protect life and property rather than to kill and to destroy, and become a sane and compassionate voice for peaceful coexistence in the world . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They continue to give tax breaks to the wealthy and tax incentives to the oil industry despite record profits. They bail out corrupt Wall Street bankers but remain apathetic to Main Street workers who lose their jobs and their homes. They “compromised” away meaningful healthcare reform and see fiscal responsibility as cutting social programs such as aid to education, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We who advocate peace and justice say that benefiting the affluent at the expense of the poor and the middle class is inhumane, short sighted, a violation of trust, and of basic human decency. . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

On “National Holidays” such as Memorial Day and the Fourth of July, they parade, stage air shows, weapons displays, and celebrate the technology of death and destruction to commercialize patriotism and to glorify war and the military experience. We who advocate peace and justice say that these national holidays are not for celebration, commercial marketing, or deceptive recruitment practices. Rather they are for remembering and for grieving the loss of ALL who were sacrificed to the tragedy and insanity of war  . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They refuse to “look back” and to investigate the crimes of those who violated the law and the trust of the American people by choosing war unnecessarily; crimes against humanity that cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of human lives. We who advocate peace and justice say that we are a nation of laws to which all are subject equally, that such crimes must be investigated and the guilty held accountable for their transgressions. Prosecute the war criminals! . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They sat idly by as the city of New Orleans and thousands of its inhabitants died; ignore global warming, choosing rhetoric rather than effective action while the gas and petroleum industry continues to profit from polluting the planet and destroying its fragile ecosystem. We who advocate peace and justice say that this indifference to human pain and suffering and failure to defend the planet and its diverse species against ecoterrorism is unconscionable, inexcusable, and ultimately suicidal . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They spout the meaningless rhetoric of shallow patriotism, arrogantly waving the flag of “freedom” or pasting it to the bumper of their gas guzzling humvees, and think it belongs solely to those who unquestioningly beat the drums of war, from a safe distance of course, while their leaders sacrifice lives and treasure and violate the laws of god and of humankind in mistaken wars of choice and greed. We who advocate peace say that all war is anathema and unnecessary war sacrilege and those leaders who dare unleash its horror upon humankind are criminals and those who blindly follow are sheep who fail to understand the moral and legal obligations of their religion, of humanism, and of citizenship in a democracy . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

Camillo “Mac” Bica, Ph.D. is a Professor of Philosophy at the School of Visual Arts in New York City, a former Marine Corps Officer,Vietnam Veteran, and the Coordinator of Veterans For Peace Long Island.

Engelhardt: Why Are We in Afghanistan?

July 12, 2010

As Petraeus Takes Over, Could Success Be Worse Than Failure?

by Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch.com, July 12, 2010

July 12, 2011, Washington, D.C. — In triumphant testimony before a joint committee of Congress in which he was greeted on both sides of the aisle as a conquering hero, Gen. David Petraeus announced the withdrawal this month of the first 1,000 American troops from Afghanistan.  “This is the beginning of the pledge the president made to the American people to draw down the surge troops sent in since 2009,” he said, adding, “and yet let me emphasize, as I did when I took this job, that our commitment to the Afghan government and people is an enduringone.”

Last July, when Gen. Petraeus replaced the discredited Gen. Stanley McChrystal as Afghan war commander, he was hailed as an “American hero” by Senator John McCain, as “the most talented officer of his generation” by the New Yorker’s George Packer, and as “the nation’s premier warrior-diplomat” by Karen DeYoung and Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post — typical of the comments of both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives at the time. Petraeus then promised that the United States was in Afghanistan “to win.”

Continues >>

Saving Face in Unwinnable War

July 12, 2010

Sinking in debt and no closer to victory, heads may roll as the U.S. and NATO wrap up their pointless Afghan adventure

by Eric Margolis, Toronto Sun, July 11, 2010

Fire-breathing U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his Special Forces “mafia” were supposed to crush Afghan resistance to western occupation. But McChrystal was fired after rude remarks from his staff about the White House.

A more cerebral and political general, David Petraeus, replaced McChrystal. Petraeus managed to temporarily suppress resistance in Iraq.

Last week, the usually cautious Petraeus vowed from Kabul to “win” the Afghan War, which has cost the U.S. nearly $300 billion to date and 1,000 dead. The problem: No one can define what winning really means. Each time the U.S. reinforces, Afghan resistance grows stronger.

Afghanistan is America’s longest-running conflict.

The escalating war now costs U.S. taxpayers $17 billion monthly. President Barack Obama’s Afghan “surge” of 30,000 more troops will cost another $30 billion.

The Afghan and Iraq wars – at a cost of $1 trillion – are being waged on borrowed money when the U.S. is drowning in $13.1 trillion in debt.

America has become addicted to debt and war.

By 2011, Canadians will have spent an estimated $18.1 billion on Afghanistan, $1,500 per household.

The U.S. Congress, which alone can declare and fund war, shamefully allowed U.S. presidents George W. Bush and Obama to usurp this power. A majority of Americans now oppose this imperial misadventure. Though politicians fear opposing the war lest they be accused of “betraying our soldiers,” dissent is breaking into the open.

Last week, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele let the cat out of the bag, admitting the Afghan war was not winnable. War-loving Republicans erupted in rage, all but accusing Steele of high treason. Many of Steele’s most hawkish Republican critics had, like Bush and Dick Cheney, dodged real military service during the Vietnam War.

Republicans (I used to be one) blasted McChrystal’s sensible policy of trying to lessen Afghan civilian casualties from U.S. bombing and shelling. There is growing anti-western fury in Afghanistan and Pakistan over mounting civilian deaths.

By clamouring for more aggressive attacks that endanger Afghan civilians and strengthen Taliban, Republicans again sadly demonstrate they have become the party and voice of America’s dim and ignorant.

Obama claimed he was expanding the Afghan War to fight al-Qaida. Yet the Pentagon estimates there are no more than a handful of al-Qaida small-fry left in Afghanistan.

Obama owes Americans the truth about Afghanistan.

After nine years of war, the immense military might of the U.S., its dragooned NATO allies, and armies of mercenaries have been unable to defeat resistance to western occupation or create a popular, legitimate government in Kabul. Drug production has reached new heights.

As the United States feted freedom from a foreign oppressor on July 4, its professional soldiers were using every sort of weapon in Afghanistan, from heavy bombers to tanks, armoured vehicles, helicopter gunships, fleets of drones, heavy artillery, cluster bombs and an arsenal of hi-tech gear.

In spite of this might, bands of outnumbered Pashtun tribesmen and farmers, armed only with small arms, determination and limitless courage, have fought the West’s war machine to a standstill and now have it on the strategic defensive.

This brutal David versus Goliath conflict brings no honour upon the western powers waging it, including Canada. They are widely seen abroad as waging yet another pitiless colonial war against a small, backward people for resource domination and strategic geography.

Most Afghans yearn for peace after 30 years of war. But efforts by the government of Hamid Karzai, Taliban and Pakistan to forge a peace are being thwarted by Washington, Ottawa and Afghanistan’s Communist-dominated Tajik Northern Alliance. India stirs the pot in Afghanistan while rebellion seethes in Indian-held Kashmir.

The heretical Republican Steele was speaking truth when he said this ugly, pointless war is unwinnable. But Washington’s imperial impulses continue. Too many political careers in the U.S., Canada and Europe hang on this misbegotten war. So, too, does the fate of the obsolete NATO alliance that may well meet its Waterloo in the hills of Afghanistan.

© 2010 Toronto Sun

Eric Margolis is a columnist for The Toronto Sun. A veteran of many conflicts in the Middle East, Margolis recently was featured in a special appearance on Britain’s Sky News TV as “the man who got it right” in his predictions about the dangerous risks and entanglements the US would face in Iraq. His latest book is American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World

British Sangin pull-out evidences deepening crisis of US Afghan intervention

July 11, 2010

Harvey Thompson, wsws.org, July 10, 2010

Defence Secretary Liam Fox announced July 7 that British troops in the Sangin area of Afghanistan’s southern Helmand province are to be replaced by US forces. The redeployment is no less politically significant than the British pull-out from Basra in 2007 during the occupation of Iraq. It was made necessary because the army has not been able to stabilise the area.

UK forces have suffered their heaviest losses in Sangin, with 100 of the total 313 British troop fatalities taking place in the area since the 2001 US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan. The last of these was killed the day after Fox’s announcement.

Continues >>

Threatening World Order: US and Israel Quietly Announce Plans to Reconstitute Their Nuclear Stockpiles

July 11, 2010
by: Anthony DiMaggio, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed, July 10, 2010

photo
(Image: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: Stephen Train, ShellyS, Kim Klassen)

The world looks like it’s about to become a more dangerous place. A recent report from Israel’s newspaper Haaretz finds that the United States is moving forward with plans to strengthen Israel’s nuclear weapons stockpile. The report, exposed within the last few days, originated from Israel’s Army Radio, which sent along a secret document chronicling the nuclear cooperation between US and Israeli leaders.(1) Israel has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), meaning that it is not technically violating international rules under the NPT regarding the development and reconstitution of nuclear weapons, despite longstanding efforts of the international community to establish a “nuclear weapons free zone” in the Middle East.

Continues >>

US terms Kashmir Valley protest India’s internal matter

July 11, 2010

By Our Correspondent
Dawn.com, Sunday, 11 Jul, 2010

Kashmiris shout pro-freedom slogans during a protest against the  killings of youth in Srinagar.—AP

Kashmiris shout pro-freedom slogans during a protest against the killings of youth in Srinagar.—AP

WASHINGTON: The United States said on Saturday that it would like Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers to discuss the Kashmir dispute when they meet in Islamabad later this month.

US State Department’s deputy spokesman Mark Tone also told journalists that the current situation in Indian occupied Kashmir was India’s internal issue and asked protesters to conduct agitations in a peaceful manner.

“We always support dialogue between India and Pakistan,” Mr Toner said when asked if Kashmir should be discussed between the two countries.

“We regret the loss of life in this incident. It is an internal Indian matter. We respect the efforts of the government of India to investigate and resolve the current situation in Kashmir,” he said, adding that the United States had always encouraged India and Pakistan to resolve all its differences through dialogue.

“In terms of the protest, we would just urge everyone to refrain from violence and conduct protest in a free and peaceful manner,” said the US official.