Tuesday, September 25, 2012

The nigger threatens Iran over nuclear program

These statements by the nigger threaten every Iranian and all Iranians who do not oppose the nigger and his zionist backers deserve suffering and death like the nigger and his backers. Peter Khan Zendran

 Obama warns U.S. will ‘do what we must’ on Iran By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 2 hrs 59 mins ago NEW YORK—Exactly six weeks before Election Day, President Barack Obama stood on the world stage Tuesday and warned Iran that the United States will "do what we must" to stop Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon. In what could be his last speech to the annual U.N. General Assembly, Obama also told Arab Spring countries groping their way uncertainly toward democracy that they have a friend—and a role model—in America. But, he said, they must battle the forces of intolerance and extremism threatening what should be "a season of progress." "The United States of America will always stand up for these aspirations, for our own people, and all across the world. That was our founding purpose," he said. The president, under fire from Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for his handling of Iran's atomic ambitions, dedicated part of his 30-minute address to warning the Islamic republic that he cannot live with a nuclear-armed Tehran. "Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained," Obama said. "It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty," Obama continued. "That's why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." The president's stern comments closely echoed his past warnings, and stopped short of drawing the clear "red line" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sought from Washington. (Romney has at times taken a tougher stance. In a July speech in Jerusalem, he declared that "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability presents an intolerable threat to Israel, to America, and to the world." The key word there was "capability"—not an actual nuclear weapon, but the ability to build one. That lined the Republican up more closely with Netanyahu.) Obama denounced an anti-Islam video on the Internet that has partly fueled violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world, calling the film "crude and disgusting." But he explained that he could not simply ban it—and scolded those who denounce anti-Muslim speech but stay quiet when the target is Christianity. "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied," he said, in an apparent reference to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "It is time to marginalize those who, even when not resorting to violence, use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel as the central organizing principle of politics," Obama said. "For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes an excuse, for those who resort to violence." Obama noted that freedom of speech means he can condemn, but not ban, the video. "As president of our country, and commander-in-chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day," he said, drawing laughter from the audience of dignitaries. "And I will always defend their right to do so." And he invited the Muslim world to draw inspiration from America's protections for freedom of speech and religion. "We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities," he said. "We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech—the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect." Obama also paid tribute to the slain U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, killed along with three colleagues in what his administration has designated a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. Stevens "embodied the best of America," the president said. "Today, we must reaffirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers." Obama also delivered the kind of vigorous defense of his foreign policy that would not be out of place in his stump speech. "The war in Iraq is over, American troops have come home. We have begun a transition in Afghanistan, and America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014," he said. "Al Qaeda has been weakened and Osama bin Laden is no more." Images of anti-American riots—and the dramatic assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya—have helped degrade Obama's once-imposing advantage over Romney on foreign policy.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Major watson/shit u changes

Recently the watson institute has received its fifth director in the 5 years since I left.  This time they chose zionist pig peter andreas, who along with nina tannenwald, had dominated policy at the international relations department at the watson institute, and their bias has shown in Iranians and their associates being not welcome there, to third rate hacks being hired, and to zionist brainwash and policy to predominate at the watson institute.  Having personally dealt with andreas, as the Middle east studies dpt. I worked with was a concentration of international relations, his choice as director is not a pleasant one.
Of more concern is the sudden departure of Sergei Khrushchev from the watson institute.  Though Sergei is 77, no press release from either brown or the watson institute has explains his departure, and intimidation may be one reason.

Saturday, September 08, 2012

More anti-Iranian rhetoric from john mccain

While this rhetoric from john mccain may be old news, the current aggressive stance of the republican party towards Iran makes this statement all the more inciteful.  Were this any other country mccain would be silent.

News - English
News numbre:  9106062396
2012-09-08 - 17:56

McCain: Iranians Support Govt's Policy of Nuclear Advancement

TEHRAN (FNA)- American Senator and former Republican presidential candidate John McCain underlined that the US sanctions cannot deter Iran from acquiring and mastering the nuclear technology inasmuch as the Iranian nation is supportive of the country's nuclear program.

"Sanctions, when we look at history, rarely work - and in the case of Iran that's exacerbated by a sense that the nuclear program has the people's support," said McCain on Friday.

Iran and the United States are locked in a standoff over Tehran's nuclear drive. The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, while they have never presented any corroborative evidence to substantiate their allegations.

Iran vehemently denies the charges and insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Observers believe that the US is at loggerheads with Iran over the independent and home-grown nature of Tehran's nuclear technology, which gives the Islamic Republic the potential to turn into a world power and a role model for other third-world countries.

Following the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and similar reports by the former IAEA head, Mohamed ElBaradei - including a report in November 2007 and the other one in February 2008 - which praised Iran's truthfulness about key aspects of its past nuclear activities and announced settlement of outstanding issues with Tehran, US and Israeli efforts to impose further sanctions or launch military attack on Iran seemed to be completely irrational and lost international support, even in the West.

 ©2006 Fars News Agency. All Rights Reserved

Major deployment by france against Syria

I am wondering if this deployment is being done as a prelude to an attack on Syria or Iran.

 Mise à jour : 06/09/2012 17:04
Coopération franco-libanaise

Un canon de 20 mm installé sur le patrouilleur libanais Tabarja connaissait de sérieux problèmes techniques. La relâche opérationnelle de la frégate anti-sous-marine Jean de Vienne, du 25 au 29 août 2012 à Beyrouth, a été l’occasion à la coopération franco-libanaise de se manifester de nouveau.

Deux officiers mariniers du Jean de Vienne se sont donc rendus à bord du patrouilleur pour expertiser le canon. Après des recommandations précieuses sur l’entretien de l’arme en question et l’emploi des différents lubrifiants, des produits nécessaires à l’entretien de cette arme ont été délivrés. Ils ont permis un meilleur maintien de l’installation par les marins libanais.

La coopération navale franco-libanaise est particulièrement étroite. Cette année encore, plusieurs bâtiments dont le BPC Dixmude au cours de la mission Jeanne d’Arc et la frégate Jean de Vienne ont fait escale dans les ports libanais.

Tensions between Iran and canada fester

This news regarding Iranian-canadian tensions as demonstrated by both countries severing diplomatic ties, while unwelcome, should come as no surprise, as Canada is part of the british commonwealth and ruled by the british crown, which have behaved in an openly offensive manner towards the Iranian community since Prince Ali-Reza’s murder.  While at present Canada does not have the means to launch an independent offensive against Iran, and if Canada were to participate in any hypothetical offensive it would suffer heavy casualties.  This does give Iran and the World’s militaries and economy’s cause to worry.
The canadian navy has better oceanographically trained officers than any other navy in the World, and as they are taught to familiarize themselves with the behaviors of different marine life, including whales, Iran’s submarine force should worry, for the Ghadir class SSK’s can mimic a whale, and along with unmanned drones this is a menace to Iran’s Navy.
Additionally Canada is acquiring 2 Karel Doorman class Joint Support Ships from the Dutch Navy, and plans to acquire Mistral class Amphibious Assault Ships from France.  This acquisition will negatively hurt the Dutch and French economies as the Iranian military will study the design of those ships for weaknesses, as it did with the s Spanish Juan Carlos I class Aircraft Carrier/Amphibious Assault Ships and 3 Alvaro de Bazan class Destroyers Spain sold to Australia, the most voiceferous caller for war against Iran.  It will also effect the Russian, Brazilian, and Indian Navies, as the Russians are acquiring 4 Mistral class Amphibious Assault Ships which they are providing with a heavier armament, the Brazilians have sealed a deal for Mistral class Amphibious Assault Ships for their Navy to replace their only Supercarrier the Sao Paulo, and the Indians are considering acquiring Mistral class Amphibious Assault Ships as well as Dokdo class Amphibious Assault Ships from South Korea.  If these deals go through with Canada The Netherlands and France will experience the same economic problems the Spanish experienced once their arms transaction was complete, and they along with the Russians, Brazilians, and Indians will be effected strategically.  Curiously enough the british have not shared their design expertise with Canada and Australia, and one wonders why.
Notice also the behavior of Iran’s Royal families as well as the Spanish Royal House during queen elizabeth’s diamond jubilee celebrations.  The absence of Shahbanou Farah and the Pahlavis, shows acknowledgement that the windsors had some hand in Princess Leila’s murder 11 years previously, the absence of Iran’s other Royal houses shows resentment at negative and backhanded dealings with the british since the reign of Fath Ali Shah.  The Spanish absence, while over the concerns of the health of Juan Carlos I and british occupation of Gibraltar, is a welcome act of solidarity, showing the World is getting fed up with british antics.

News - English
News numbre:  9106062408
2012-09-08 - 18:26

Iranian Speaker Calls off Visit to Canada
TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani canceled his planned visit to Canada after Ottawa intensified its anti-Iran policies and recalled its diplomats from Tehran.
Larijani was scheduled to pay a visit to Canada in October in a bid to take part in a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU).

The latest reports in Iran say that Larijani has canceled his visit in reaction to the closure of the Canadian embassy in Tehran.

Five Canadian diplomats left Iran on Friday and closed the embassy in a sudden move, suspending ties with Tehran.

In Tehran, several politicians and MPs welcomed the severance of ties with Canada, saying that the relations should have been cut off much earlier.

Several members of the Iranian parliament welcomed the closure of the Canadian mission in Tehran, underlining that the bilateral relations with Ottawa didn't benefit the Iranian nation.

 ©2006 Fars News Agency. All Rights Reserved

Thursday, September 06, 2012

Getting it Right; Naval Power projections

            Today when describing the combat capability of any Navy most people use the terms blue water, green water, and brown water navies to describe the combat capability of a fleet.  While seemingly convenient this form of classification does cause some confusion, as it is based on geographical region rather than on combat capability.  For instance countries like Iran, Germany, Thailand, Sweden, Taiwan, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey are classified as brown water fleets despite the fact they have capabilities equal and superior to countries like Chile and Singapore which are classified as green water fleets.  Similarly the Russian and Chinese Navies, which are more powerful than the fleets of France and Great Britain, are often rate4d as green water fleets to the latter’s blue water fleets.  If anything, these examples show that the geographical location does not determine combat capability.  To add further confusion the term green water fleets has been used by governments to describe the fuel efficiency of their ships, and the criteria for blue water fleet has changed repeatedly over the past few decades as strategy and tactics change.

            Almost a century ago the Navies of the World based their strength ratings entirely on combat capability, namely who had how many Capital Ships, could they support a fleet away from their home shores while protecting their native land, and could they produce weapons independent of any outside power.  This criteria should be applied rather than a geographic location for more accurate assessments of Naval power.  Consider how many Fleets classified as green water navies like Brazil and Chile are dependent on imports, the latter having no Naval industry whatsoever, which is a hindrance in a conflict, as the Argentines found out during the Falklands War.  Consider how countries like Russia, China, and India tend to be classified as green water fleets despite the fact they possess many Capital Ships and can send their forces anywhere in the World, not to mention the fact that their navies are larger and more powerful than the blue water fleets of France and the UK, and that Russia and China can match the US navy in terms of power projection.

            Interestingly enough the German Navy is not often mentioned as a green water fleet, despite the fact that they can deploy their forces anywhere in the World, and that countries like India, South Korea, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Greece, South Africa, Argentina, Peru, Nigeria, Israel to name a few use and in some cases are dependent on German technology in their fleets.  One reason for this lack of inclusion is that Germany, like Japan, has a constitution imposed on it at the end of WWII which prevents it from having offensive weapons.  While Japan has to deal with perceived threats from China and North Korea, allowing it to have Aircraft Carriers, though under the classification of “Helicopter Destroyer” the reunification of Germany and the collapse of the communist regime in Russia Germany has no proper threats, which explains why it’s Brandenburg, Sachsen, and Baden-Wuerttemberg classes of Destroyers are called “Command Frigates” and plans to acquire Juan Carlos I class Aircraft Carrier/Amphibious Assault Ships or Johan de Witt class Amphibious Assault Ships have met with opposition from German politicians.  The Netherlands, though having a relatively small Navy, has advanced equipment and has exported their weapons to countries which continue to use their material including Indonesia, Morocco, Peru, Chile, Portugal, Belgium, Malaysia.  The Spanish Juan Carlos I Aircraft Carrier/Amphibious Assault Ship has received attention from the US Navy which has begun to incorporate features in the new America class of Amphibious Assault Ship, and the French have worked with the Russians in building a more heavily armed version of the Mistral class Amphibious Assault Ship.

            The last two instances are important for it shows that larger fleets can learn and be taken to task by smaller fleets, the Spanish/American example of a smaller fleet familiarizing a larger one with new innovation, the French/Russian example of a smaller fleet familiarizing a larger one with a new weapon concept it is unfamiliar with.  Certainly such sharing of technology goes beyond the scope of geographical boundaries and magnify the projection of the Naval power of that country by making other nations, including those superior in capability, dependent on them for basic needs.

            It is even prudent to rate the capabilities of Fleets as well as the Fleets overall.  For instance the Navies of Germany and Iran have second rate battle fleets but first rate military industrial capability, while the Navies of Brazil and Australia have first rate battle fleets but second rate military industrial capability.  Many publicly overrated Navies, like those of Israel, South Africa, Taiwan, Argentina, Saudi Arabia have second rate battle fleets but third rate military industrial capability.

            One has to be careful in using new methods of rating the Navies of other countries, and the more one looks at methods that have stood the test of time one learns not to question them.