Russia stands against those behind Syrian uprising

It is good to see Russia, Lavrov particularly, finally has had the courage to stand against foreign powers meddling in Syrian affairs. After all, those doing the uprising against Assad are all western educated and connected.


 Russia accuses West of inciting Syrian rebels UN postpones vote on a Western-backed resolution that threatens Syrian authorities with sanctions after suicide bombing. Last Modified: 18 Jul 2012 18:15 Lavrov says Western powers are unwilling to compromise on a solution to the Syrian conflict [EPA] The United Nations Security Council has postponed until Thursday a vote on a Western-backed resolution that threatens Syrian authorities with sanctions in a bid to end the 16-month conflict, Russia's UN envoy said. "A possible vote has been postponed until tomorrow morning," Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador, told reporters after a meeting of the envoys of the council's five permanent members, adding that further talks on the measure would be held on Wednesday. International envoy Kofi Annan had requested the delay amid differences between Moscow and the resolutions's Western sponsors over whether Damascus should be threatened with sanctions. Russia has vowed to veto the resolution drawn up by Britain, with the backing of France, United States, Germany and Portugal. The resolution proposes non-military sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter if President Bashar al-Assad does not halt the use of heavy weapons within 10 days of a resolution being passed. Russia accused the West of inciting the Syrian opposition after the defence minister and Assad's brother-in-law were killed in a bomb attack, arguing that a proposed UN resolution amounted to support for the rebels and would lead to more bloodshed. In-depth coverage of escalating violence across Syria "Instead of calming the opposition down, some of our partners are inciting it to go on," Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, was quoted as saying by the RIA Novosti news agency on Wednesday. Supporting the Syrian opposition "is a dead-end policy, because Assad is not leaving voluntarily," he said. Despite the probable delay in the vote there was no sign that Russia has withdrawn its veto threat. "We cannot accept Chapter VII and the section about sanctions," Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said in Moscow on Wednesday. 'Need to act' Foreign ministers from the five permanent Security Council members - Russia, United States, France, Britain and China - were negotiating the future of the resolution, diplomats said. UN ambassadors from the five countries held talks at the Council on when the vote would go ahead. The mandate of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) ends on Friday and without a resolution the UN may have to hurriedly withdraw the nearly 300 unarmed observers now in Damascus. The Western countries will "seriously consider" Annan's request, said Peter Wittig, UN envoy for Germany which is currently a non-permanent member of the council. "We want to give diplomacy a chance but there has to be meaningful engagement on the side of Russia and China with our resolution," Wittig told reporters. Russia, Assad's main ally, and China have vetoed two council resolutions which just hinted at sanctions. "We just don't want business as usual. We want a strong signal with that resolution and the events in Damascus today of course dramatically highlight the need for the council to act at long last," Wittig added. Rare insights into life in Homs under daily shelling "We have a responsibility. Syria is sliding into chaos," the Germany envoy said. More than 17,000 people have been killed since a popular uprising against Assad began 16 months ago, activists say. "Decisions should be taken by people in Syria, the Syrian people," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said during the press conference in Moscow with Russia's President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday afternoon. "This process being prolonged is resulting in more and more massacres being committed by Assad, just like his father." Following the Russia-Turkey press conference, Al Jazeera's Jennifer Glasse noted that both Russia and Turkey had said that they were backing the option preferred by the Syrian people. "Russia believes what the people want is no intervention," she said, while Turkey says the majority of the Syrian people are calling for international intervention. "Russia is very clear that it wants its resolution passed, and that it will not back any resolution that will impose sanctions." 'Terrorist action' Ali Akbar Salehi, the Iranian foreign minister, condemned a suicide bombing which killed three Syrian security chiefs on Wednesday, in a telephone call with his counterpart in Damascus. "Salehi condemned the terrorist action committed today in Damascus during a telephone conversation with Walid Muallem," the official IRNA news agency reported. Tehran is the main regional ally of Assad's regime, advocating dialogue between the government and opposition. According to IRNA, Salehi called for "an immediate end ... to foreign interference and arms shipments ... to Syria and the support of some regional and international parties for terrorist action". "The Islamic Republic of Iran condemns all violence and destructive action and believes that dialogue is the only solution to end the Syrian crisis," the minister said. Meanwhile, the White House said Wednesday that President Bashar al-Assad was losing control of Syria, after a deadly attack on his inner circle, and that the United States was working urgently with international partners to push for a political transition there. "There is real momentum against Assad, with increasing defections, and a strengthened and more united opposition that is operating across the country," Tommy Vietor, the spokesperson for the White House, said after Wednesday's suicide bombing in Damascus. "With the Assad regime losing control, it's time for the Syrian people and the international community to focus on what comes next," he said. "We are working urgently with our international partners to push for a political transition in Syria. The international community, including the opposition, has met several times to begin this process and it must continue."

Anti-Iranian missile radar to be installed in qatar

Once again, qatar shows what an imperialist pawn it has become by allowing america to put this piece of shit on its territory. The real aggressor and backer of aggression in Khalj Fars since the 1970's has been america, and Iran even today is acting only defensively.



 US 'building missile defence radar' in Qatar Pentagon says it is seeking to 'build greater cooperation' and address security interests in region. Last Modified: 18 Jul 2012 05:26 The Pentagon is building a missile defence radar station at a covert location in Qatar, The Wall Street Journal has reported. The site will be part of a system intended to defend the interests of the United States and its allies against Iranian rockets, unnamed officials told the US newspaper on Tuesday. "We have a number of allies and partners in the region with whom we seek to build greater cooperation, and our goal is to address a wide range of US security interests there," the Pentagon said in reply to Al Jazeera’s question on purported radar site. A similar radar has existed on Mount Keren in the Negev Desert since 2008 and another is installed in Turkey as part of NATO's missile defence shield. Officials told the newspaper that the US Central Command, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East and South Asia, wants to deploy the first Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system in the area in the coming months, possibly in the United Arab Emirates. The newspaper also reported that the US was preparing for its biggest-ever minesweeping exercises in the Gulf in September, calling them the "first such multilateral drills in the region".

Khalj Fars provocation against Iran

Notice that the Enterprise is scheduled to retire, and the eisenhower and lincoln have aging hulls and equipment, and two carrier groups in the region is provocative enough witht the recent drone deployment. Notice they also do not report what type of Iranian PT boat came close to the lincoln. This is provocation, as americ ahas no business in Khalj Fars and america's political leadership even now is playing a backstabbing game with Iran. Peter Khan Zendran US aircraft carrier has close encounter with Iranian patrol boat An Iranian patrol boat approached a U.S. aircraft carrier, backing down within two miles from the USS Abraham Lincoln. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports from the USS Abraham Lincoln. By NBC News and msnbc.com news services ABOARD THE USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN – A U.S. aircraft carrier sailing through the strategic Strait of Hormuz had a close encounter with an Iranian vessel Tuesday. The Iranian navy patrol boat came within two miles of the USS Abraham Lincoln, part of the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, as it sailed through the strait with the destroyer Cape St. George and a guided missile cruiser. The Iranian military came out for a look at the ships, first sending a reconnaissance flight and then sending the Iranian patrol boat. The commander of the USS Abraham Lincoln, Capt. John Alexander, said such close encounters “could eventually lead to a fatal miscalculation.” “They have the ability to take a shot at me at some point, and I worry about it,” Alexander told NBC News. Because of strong U.S. sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program, Iran has threatened to shut down the strait and attack U.S. warships. Oil tankers carry a fifth of the world's oil supply through the strait, only about 30 miles across at its narrowest point. Iran has also amassed Revolutionary Guard fast boats, submarines and, along the shoreline, anti-ship cruise missiles. Vice Admiral Mark Fox, commander of the 5th Fleet, said, “We’re ready today. This is the world we live in.” Fox said Sunday that Iran had built up its naval forces in the Gulf and prepared boats that could be used in suicide attacks, but the U.S. Navy could prevent it from blocking the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet always has at least one supercarrier at sea accompanied by scores of jets and a fleet of frigates and destroyers. Panetta Accelerates Stennis Carrier Strike Group Deployment Story Number: NNS120716-20 7/16/2012 image: Top News Story By Jim Garamone Jim Garamone Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy will deploy the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and its strike group four months early and shift its destination to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, DOD officials said at the Pentagon July 16. The deployment late this summer is in response to Central Command's requirement for an extended carrier presence, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said. The move affects 5,500 sailors aboard the Stennis and the Aegis cruiser USS Mobile Bay. Last week, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta approved a request from Central Command commander Marine Corps General James N. Mattis to accelerate Stennis' deployment. "The decision will help support existing naval force requirements in the Middle East and reduce the gap caused by the upcoming departure of the USS Enterprise Strike Group," Little said. "It is in keeping with our long-standing commitments to the region." Aircraft carrier strike groups provide commanders with ample and flexible air assets to enhance interoperability with partner nations and maintain strong military-to-military relations as well as respond to a wide variety of contingencies, Little said. The Bremerton, Wash.-based Stennis strike group was due to deploy at the end of the year to U.S. Pacific Command. The group returned from duty in the Middle East in March. The accelerated deployment to the Central Command area of responsibility is not aimed at any specific threat. "In keeping with Centcom's requirements, this is a very important region for our defense strategy," Little said. "We've had a presence in the region for decades and we have a range of interests that this extension of our capabilities will support." Nor, he said, is the deployment a direct response to tensions with Iran. The U.S. military is "always mindful of the challenges posed by Iran, but ... this is not a decision based solely on the challenges posed by Iran," Little said. Currently the USS Enterprise and USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike groups are deployed to U.S. Central Command. The USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group is due to relieve the Lincoln group shortly. The Stennis group will relieve Enterprise. The Navy continues to operate at a high operational tempo in order to meet U.S. security needs around the world,. "Our deployment strain is as great as or greater today than it has been at any time in the past 10 years," a Navy official said. Sailors and their families have been informed of the change, Little said. Navy officials looked at a wide range of options to ensure Navy commitments and combatant commander mission requirements are met and to lessen the impact of schedule changes. The carrier strike group will be ready to deploy even given the accelerated timeline, Little said. "The U.S. Navy is well-equipped to ensure our sailors are trained and ready for this deployment," he said. Navy leaders understand the operational and personnel impacts this accelerated deployment will have. These include training cycle adjustments, crew and family uncertainty and reductions to quality of life port visits. As more information becomes available, the Navy will release it, officials said, noting defense leaders are "committed to keeping sailors and their families informed about current and future deployments to the best of our ability." For more information, visit www.navy.mil, www.facebook.com/usnavy, or www.twitter.com/usnavy. Enterprise Conducts Mass Casualty Drill Story Number: NNS120714-02 7/14/2012 By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Brian G. Reynolds, Enterprise Carrier Strike Group Public Affairs USS ENTERPRISE, At Sea (NNS) -- The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65) conducted a mass casualty drill July 13 as part of a continued commitment to mission readiness. A mass casualty is any instance in which the level of casualties is greater than the Medical department alone can support. "This could be anywhere from 10 to 100 people," said Lt. Darcy Guerricagoitia, Enterprise's nurse. "It depends on the injuries, resources and personnel available. It enables us to exercise and evaluate the ship's response during a mass casualty scenario." During a mass casualty, there are four levels of casualties used by Medical personnel to categorize the injured who are then taken to one of four corresponding triage stations. "For example, a red casualty requires immediate medical attention and will not survive if not seen relatively soon," said Guerricagoitia. "Any compromise to the casualty's airway, hemorrhage control or untreated shock could be fatal." Another aspect of a mass casualty event is the activation of the walking blood bank. The walking blood bank is comprised of a minimum of 300 people - or, at least 10 percent of the ship's company - who are enrolled and eligible to donate blood in the event of a mass casualty. "Right now, we have 333 people enrolled," said Guerricagoitia. "Ideally, everyone would be a member of the walking blood bank. It can save your life and the life of your shipmate." A mass casualty event doesn't just affect the Medical department, as the cause of such massive damage and injury is generally a ship-wide catastrophe. In addition to Medical, the drill involved the Air Department Training Team and Security. The Medical department hopes to incorporate more departments in the future. During the drill, several scenarios were played out to test the readiness of the crew. One of these scenarios included an aircraft fire in the hangar bay. After the fire was distinguished, but reflashed injuring 13 people. "We, the Medical Training Team, are not only evaluating the Medical department's response to the casualties, we are also evaluating the ship's response," said Guerricagoitia. The main focus of a drill like this is mission readiness and the overall ability of Enterprise to carry out its operational missions in the event of a mass casualty. "Yes, it is a training requirement to do mass casualty drills," said Guerricagoitia. "It is also important to assess our preparedness as a ship to deal with a mass casualty." Needless to say, real-life situations like the one played out during the drill are not unheard of. Guerricagoitia believes that it is imperative that the ship's crew be able to act - and act swiftly - in the event that a worst-case scenario occurs. "This is important," said Guerricagoitia. "There is certainly the potential for it to happen. Communication, participation, knowledge and safety are all important in the drill, and during a real event." For more information, visit www.navy.mil, www.facebook.com/usnavy, or www.twitter.com/usnavy. For more news from USS Enterprise (CVN 65), visit www.navy.mil/local/cvn65/.

New shit u president-Zendran connection

Notice the past history of shit u's choice to replace nigress simmons.  The wilson school at princeton and the watson institute are closely connected, so this shows that shit u will not end it's beef with me with simmons out of the top spot.
Peter Z

March 2, 2012

A Princeton Dean Is Named to Lead Brown

By TAMAR LEWIN

Christina Hull Paxson, the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, will become president of Brown University on July 1. She succeeds Ruth J. Simmons, who said in September that she would step down.

Dr. Paxson, 52, is an economist who began teaching at Princeton in 1986. In 2000, she founded the Wilson School’s Center for Health and Wellbeing, serving as its director until 2009, when she became dean. Her work in recent years has focused on the relationship of economic factors to children’s health and welfare.

Dr. Paxson has served as chairwoman of Princeton’s economics department. She is also a senior editor of The Future of Children and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. She is probably best known in the popular media for her research, with Anne Case, on the relationship of children’s height to status, intelligence and earnings.

Chancellor Thomas J. Tisch, who led a search committee, said Dr. Paxson’s record at Princeton and her success at the Woodrow Wilson School showed that she was the right candidate. Dr. Paxson, he said, had “taken the school and made it a happy place. If she can make Brown any happier, I think we’d burst the thermometer.”

Coincidentally, he said, Chung-I Tan, who led a campus advisory group that helped in the search, had taught Dr. Paxson’s older brother, a 1975 Brown graduate, and had written his recommendation for architecture school.

Dr. Paxson said it was her brother who provided her first impression of Brown. “My big brother, this clean-cut, studious kid, went off to Brown and came back at Thanksgiving vacation to Pittsburgh,” she said. “He had long hair, he was listening to new music and he argued with my mother about the ethics of eating meat.”

An alumna of Swarthmore College who earned her graduate degrees at Columbia, Dr. Paxson is married to Ari Gabinet, executive vice president and general counsel of Oppenheimer Funds. They have two sons, ages 14 and 22.

New threat in Asia/Pacific/Khalj Fars region from australia, thanks to Spanish business

I recently obtained images of the new Amphibious Assault Ships Spain has built for the australian navy.  While officially called Amphibious Assault Shipsthese ships are based on the Spanish Aircraft Carrier/Amphibious Assault Ship Juan Carlos I, and therefore can be readily converted to an Aircraft Carrier.  Below is a link to specifications of the ships from the australian navy so one can see the true nature of these ships
 http://www.navy.gov.au/Canberra_Class
Despite the timetable work is progressing fast on these ships as the images I have uploaded below show.  Here is a recent satellite image of hmas canberra
 http://www.myspace.com/zendransnavalimages/photos/2655324
Here is a recent satellite image of hmas adelaide
http://www.myspace.com/zendransnavalimages/photos/2655325
These ships and other nato projects have helped keep Spain's economy afloat until recently, as many countries in Asia, particularly Iran, have been the target of aggression, and the australians have been notorious troublemakers in Asia and the Pacific.  Remember, the missile frigate hmas adelaide was detained by Iranian Fath class Fast Attack Craft after provoking an incident with Iran, and a few months later was decomissioned.  Plus the british monarch is head of australia's military, and with the new british Supercarrier's still under construction, the ex-hms ark royal being scrapped in Turkey where Iranians can study the design, and the canadians still debating whether to acquire 2 French Mistral class Amphibious Assault Ships and 2 Dutch Joint Support Ships the australians may test these ships out by provoking a conflict with Iran.

More american aggression against Syria and Iraq

This news shows that america still has a presence in Iraq, otherwise Tariq Aziz would be free like his colleague Mohammad Said. Also notice the news about Syria, america wants war and must be stopped. Peter Khan Zendran Obama plans war on Syria 31.05.2012 16:02 by Stephen Lendman Obama plans war on Syria. 47231.jpeg Guilty of war crimes multiple times over, Obama plans more death, destruction, conquest, colonization, resource control, exploitation, and dominance. Syria is target one, then Iran, then other nations. It follows Washington's longstanding pattern of waging war on humanity. Iran's peaceful nuclear program is pretext for post-November war. Syria's Houla massacre draws it closer against Assad. Since early last year, thousands of Syrian civilians and security forces died. Daily body counts mount. Western-enlisted insurgents bear most responsibility. Assad is wrongfully blamed for their crimes. Houla represents the largest incident so far. At least 109 deaths were reported. Most were killed at point blank range. According to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) spokesman Rupert Colville, over 80% "were summarily executed in two separate incidents." "What is very clear is that this was an absolutely abominable event that happened in Houla and at least a substantial part of it was summary executions of civilians, including women and children." Entire families "were shot (in cold blood) in their houses," or murdered other ways. Western-enlisted death squad assassins, not Assad, bear full responsibility. Spurious accusations blamed pro-Assad Alawites. Claims about tanks and artillery "pounding" Houla were exaggerated. Bodies found were intact. Bullet, stab, and other wounds reflect close-range killing. Insurgents went house to house. Victims had no place to hide. Nonetheless, Washington, Britain, France, and rogue partners reacted as expected. Ambassadors were expelled. Syria hasn't had one in Washington since last year. Its charge d'affaires got 72 hours to leave. A White House statement condemned Assad for killer gang crimes he tried to stop, saying: "These acts serve as a vile testament to an illegitimate regime that responds to peaceful political protest with unspeakable and inhuman brutality." Since violence erupted last year, Washington orchestrated events on the ground. Obama officials bear full responsibility for mass murder, destruction, mayhem and instability. America is directly or indirectly involved in virtually all regional conflicts. It's the world's leading human rights abuser. Longstanding war plans target Assad. Houla may be used as trigger to launch it. Inflammatory scoundrel media reports make war more likely. It wouldn't be the first time. Former New York Times writer Judith Miller fell from grace. She was directly complicit in promoting war against Iraq. Her daily front page features read like Pentagon handouts. She sacrificed journalism for warmongering. Times editors let her. She's gone, but they're still at it. Last year they targeted Gaddafi. This year they promote war on Iran and Syria. Shameless propaganda encourages what they should oppose. Times' correspondents, op-ed contributors, and editorial writers comprise a virtual Noah's Ark of scam artists. Journalistic ethics aren't tolerated. Subservience to wealth and power is mandated. So is lying for a living. On May 30, several featured articles and one inflammatory editorial targeted Assad. One headlined "Western Nations, Protesting Killings, Expel Envoys," saying: On Tuesday, Washington "joined with 10 nations...." They expelled Syrian diplomats. Fingers pointed the wrong way. Heated rhetoric substituted for truth. War drums were clearly audible. Journalism is support to accurately inform, agenda-free. Advocacy shouldn't be tolerated. Taking sides veers far from good reporting. Too often it's featured on Times pages. Calling Houla "a tipping point" comes dangerously close to advocating war. Blaming Assad for insurgent killings draws it closer. No publication has more global influence than The Times. Government officials follow its articles, commentaries and editorials. Agendas they advocate affect policies. Promoting war makes it more likely. The Times strayed far from June 13, 1971. It became the first broadsheet to begin publishing the top secret Pentagon Papers. At the time, publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger said, "What was revealed, had to be revealed....people had the right to know." In a 1996 article, The Times said: The Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public, but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance." Did misreporting about nonexistent Iraq WMDs matter less? Were lies about Gaddafi acceptable? Was getting the Afghanistan wrong good journalism? Are rule of law principles unimportant? Is sanitized news without truth and full disclosure proper on Times' pages? Obvious questions go answered. Another headline read "Romney Calls for Action on Syria, but His Party Is Divided," saying: He and other congressional hawks want war on Syria. John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham are especially belligerent. They bluntly support air strikes. Romney stops short of their rhetoric but not their agenda to topple Assad. Most others in Congress support it. So does Obama. Romney wants faster action. Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey said: "Of course, there is always a military option....It may come to a point with Syria because of the atrocities." He added that Friday's massacre made intervention more likely. War plans were prepared months ago. They're also ready against Iran. Key NATO partners and regional allies support it. So do the Turkish-based Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Syrian National Council (SNC). Another Times article headlined "Israel's Defense Minister Calls for More Action Against Assad," saying: Houla "compel(s) the world to take action - not just talk, but action," he said. He stopped just short of urging war, but imagine what's said privately. Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said: "The West must intervene, either directly, or indirectly." He added that Israel must get involved. These type comments suggest war draws closer. When rhetoric gets this heated, bombs away usually follows. At this point, it looks almost certain. Whether Russia and China can prevent it remains to be seen. On May 30, a Times editorial headlined "The Massacre at Houla," saying: Expelling Syrian diplomats stops short of tougher measures needed. Russia remains a "roadblock." Fingers pointed solely at Assad. Houla "was just the latest evidence that he never intended to" pursue peace. The editorial suggested "shabiha, or government thugs" did "at least some of the killings by shooting people - including entire families - at close range." The most obvious question went unanswered: Cui bono? Clearly not Assad. Like previous hostile editorials, this one stopped short of urging war. Given its tough rhetoric, it's just a matter of time. Calls overall grow louder. On May 29, a Washington Post editorial headlined "Time for US leadership on Syria," saying: Body counts mount. An "illusory cease fire" exists. Houla wasn't unique. It's "just better documented than (other Assad) crimes....in towns and cities across Syria." "The Obama administration persists, too, in declining to exercise the U.S. leadership that would be required to stop the massacres. For the past two months it hid behind Mr. Annan. Now....his plan has become an embarrassment...." "The reality is that the killing in Syria will continue, and the threat to vital U.S. interests across the Middle East will grow...." The Washington Post also barely stopped short of urging war. At issue is how much longer? Harsh commentaries and political rhetoric suggest what peace advocates fear most. A hawkish Haaretz article intensifies it. Headlined "On Syria, the world prattles on," saying: "The Syrian threat doesn't just hover over Syrian cities and towns; it is also warming up the engines of Israel's fighter jets" to attack Iran. Full of misinformation, it feigned concern for regional security and stability. When irresponsible commentators and political officials promote wars, spurious reasons are given. Deception substitutes for truth and reason. Bad policies usually follow. Only imperial interests gain. People on both sides lose. One conflict begets others. Endless turmoil and violence persist. Advocating them is unconscionable. Calls for war grow louder. A large-scale false flag attack blamed on Syria could cinch it. It wouldn't be the first time America manipulated events to wage war and won't be the last. Odds look like it's coming. A Final Comment For months, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been under house arrest in London. Sweden wants him extradited on spurious charges. They include unlawful coercion, sexual molestation and rape. Allegedly it's for having sex without a condom. Since when is condomless or consensual sex illegal? A honey trap snared him. At issue isn't sex. Washington wants him extradited to stand trial for whistleblowing. Obama officials want him put away and silenced. Sweden is a way station. On May 31, Britain's Supreme Court ordered Assange extradited to Stockholm. Its 5 - 2 decision rejected his argument about an invalid European arrest warrant. His lawyers got two weeks to contest. Earlier, two lower courts ruled for extradition. Washington exerted pressure and got what it wanted. Summary judgment awaits Assange in America. Maybe Guantanamo or Bradley Manning-style. Kid gloves treatment won't await him. Claims about putting lives at risk are spurious. At issue is silencing whistleblowers. Assange and Manning are best known. Assange may appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Doing so could delay extradition for months. Per Samuelson, one of his lawyers, said whether he'll appeal isn't decided. At the same time, he believes he'll be cleared in Sweden. Whether true or not won't matter if authorities there order him extradited to America. At this point, it looks likely, but resolution may be months away. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War" http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. Дмитрий Судаков Copyright © 1999-2012, «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors. Tareq Aziz: A Son's Plea 30.05.2012 23:13 by Felicity Arbuthnot Tareq Aziz: A Son's Plea. 47227.jpeg Source: AsiaNews.it "We don't need spectators to witness our suffering and tell us they feel with us. We need help to put a stop to it." (Raja Shehadeh, 1951-: "When The Birds Stopped Singing.") "Madam Felicity, when I was ten years old, I was handing out leaflets on the streets of Baghdad, putting them through people's doors, to stop the British getting hold of our oil. I am not about to give up on Iraq now." (Tareq Aziz in an interview, 1999.) Iraq's former Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Tareq Aziz (76), who largely ignored his already ailing health before the illegal 2003 invasion of his country in order to travel and argue eloquently against the embargo's crippling toll on the population, and later to attempt to avert invasion, has now been imprisoned - in the country he loves and for which he fought verbally, with passion and tenacity - for nine years. His son Ziad, who with his family, in addition to the pain of his father's incarceration, now bears the burden of exile, has fought tenaciously for his father's release, but very rarely speaks publicly of the family's ongoing grief at his plight. It is a measure of his fears for Tareq Aziz that he has sent a letter expressing deep fear and concern for his father, following his family's visit to Iraq to see him, to a group affiliated with the Brussels Tribunal (i) including human rights, legal and medical organizations, asking for all possible assistance in resolving the situation. His words are quoted with permission: "I just want to update you on my father's health condition. My mother and sisters visited him last Friday (25th of May) in the Iraqi prison in which he is being held in Khadimiyah." ( Khadimiyah is part of Baghdad Old City, on the eastern side of the Tigris.) "They thought he had deteriorated since their last visit, he has a strange cough and he is still not able to walk on his own. He asked to be seen by a doctor about the cough, but the prison officials have yet to decide on that." "The heat is not an easy thing for him to endure, it really worsens his health condition and lowers his spirits." (This is May. Baghdad's sweltering Augusts can bring temperatures of 140 farenheit - 60 celsius.) " ... time is not on our side (ii.) I am afraid that his deteriorating health condition won't last him the summer with the suffocating heat and lack of medical attention. "Time is of the essence" and speedy resolution critical. "I realize these things take time, but as I said earlier, time is not on our side. My family and I are ready to help in any way we can, if there is anything we can do. "Respectfully yours, Ziad Tareq Aziz." It is a measure of the precarious health of a proud man, from a proud family of the proudest of nations that his son should near plead to those of us from nations responsible for the destruction of his. The letter ended graciously: "Lastly, I would like to thank you again for all your efforts." Tareq Aziz and his incarcerated colleagues never did give up on Iraq, never fled as they could have, before the impending invasion. They are paying a terrible price, meted out in kangaroo courts. The vengeance and lawlessness of the liberators and their puppet government, equals - and indeed largely exceeds - those they decry as tyrants and dictators. Sadly, the West's paper thin, sham democracies, nevertheless make all their nationals of conscience equally culpable. i. http://www.brussellstribunal.org/ ii. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31055 Prepared for publication by: Lisa Karpova Pravda.Ru Дмитрий Судаков Copyright © 1999-2012, «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

Iranian cyberattacks ordered by the nigger

This is only more proof that the nigger in the white house wants war with Iran. This is an attack and every Iranian is justified in doing anything to any ameircan government member anywhere as reprisal. Peter II, Khan-e-Mazendaran June 1, 2012 Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran By DAVID E. SANGER WASHINGTON — From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program. Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet. At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm’s “escape,” Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Leon E. Panetta, considered whether America’s most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran’s nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised. “Should we shut this thing down?” Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room. Told it was unclear how much the Iranians knew about the code, and offered evidence that it was still causing havoc, Mr. Obama decided that the cyberattacks should proceed. In the following weeks, the Natanz plant was hit by a newer version of the computer worm, and then another after that. The last of that series of attacks, a few weeks after Stuxnet was detected around the world, temporarily took out nearly 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges Iran had spinning at the time to purify uranium. This account of the American and Israeli effort to undermine the Iranian nuclear program is based on interviews over the past 18 months with current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day. These officials gave differing assessments of how successful the sabotage program was in slowing Iran’s progress toward developing the ability to build nuclear weapons. Internal Obama administration estimates say the effort was set back by 18 months to two years, but some experts inside and outside the government are more skeptical, noting that Iran’s enrichment levels have steadily recovered, giving the country enough fuel today for five or more weapons, with additional enrichment. Whether Iran is still trying to design and build a weapon is in dispute. The most recent United States intelligence estimate concludes that Iran suspended major parts of its weaponization effort after 2003, though there is evidence that some remnants of it continue. Iran initially denied that its enrichment facilities had been hit by Stuxnet, then said it had found the worm and contained it. Last year, the nation announced that it had begun its own military cyberunit, and Brig. Gen. Gholamreza Jalali, the head of Iran’s Passive Defense Organization, said that the Iranian military was prepared “to fight our enemies” in “cyberspace and Internet warfare.” But there has been scant evidence that it has begun to strike back. The United States government only recently acknowledged developing cyberweapons, and it has never admitted using them. There have been reports of one-time attacks against personal computers used by members of Al Qaeda, and of contemplated attacks against the computers that run air defense systems, including during the NATO-led air attack on Libya last year. But Olympic Games was of an entirely different type and sophistication. It appears to be the first time the United States has repeatedly used cyberweapons to cripple another country’s infrastructure, achieving, with computer code, what until then could be accomplished only by bombing a country or sending in agents to plant explosives. The code itself is 50 times as big as the typical computer worm, Carey Nachenberg, a vice president of Symantec, one of the many groups that have dissected the code, said at a symposium at Stanford University in April. Those forensic investigations into the inner workings of the code, while picking apart how it worked, came to no conclusions about who was responsible. A similar process is now under way to figure out the origins of another cyberweapon called Flame that was recently discovered to have attacked the computers of Iranian officials, sweeping up information from those machines. But the computer code appears to be at least five years old, and American officials say that it was not part of Olympic Games. They have declined to say whether the United States was responsible for the Flame attack. Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons — even under the most careful and limited circumstances — could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks. “We discussed the irony, more than once,” one of his aides said. Another said that the administration was resistant to developing a “grand theory for a weapon whose possibilities they were still discovering.” Yet Mr. Obama concluded that when it came to stopping Iran, the United States had no other choice. If Olympic Games failed, he told aides, there would be no time for sanctions and diplomacy with Iran to work. Israel could carry out a conventional military attack, prompting a conflict that could spread throughout the region. A Bush Initiative The impetus for Olympic Games dates from 2006, when President George W. Bush saw few good options in dealing with Iran. At the time, America’s European allies were divided about the cost that imposing sanctions on Iran would have on their own economies. Having falsely accused Saddam Hussein of reconstituting his nuclear program in Iraq, Mr. Bush had little credibility in publicly discussing another nation’s nuclear ambitions. The Iranians seemed to sense his vulnerability, and, frustrated by negotiations, they resumed enriching uranium at an underground site at Natanz, one whose existence had been exposed just three years before. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, took reporters on a tour of the plant and described grand ambitions to install upward of 50,000 centrifuges. For a country with only one nuclear power reactor — whose fuel comes from Russia — to say that it needed fuel for its civilian nuclear program seemed dubious to Bush administration officials. They feared that the fuel could be used in another way besides providing power: to create a stockpile that could later be enriched to bomb-grade material if the Iranians made a political decision to do so. Hawks in the Bush administration like Vice President Dick Cheney urged Mr. Bush to consider a military strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities before they could produce fuel suitable for a weapon. Several times, the administration reviewed military options and concluded that they would only further inflame a region already at war, and would have uncertain results. For years the C.I.A. had introduced faulty parts and designs into Iran’s systems — even tinkering with imported power supplies so that they would blow up — but the sabotage had had relatively little effect. General James E. Cartwright, who had established a small cyberoperation inside the United States Strategic Command, which is responsible for many of America’s nuclear forces, joined intelligence officials in presenting a radical new idea to Mr. Bush and his national security team. It involved a far more sophisticated cyberweapon than the United States had designed before. The goal was to gain access to the Natanz plant’s industrial computer controls. That required leaping the electronic moat that cut the Natanz plant off from the Internet — called the air gap, because it physically separates the facility from the outside world. The computer code would invade the specialized computers that command the centrifuges. The first stage in the effort was to develop a bit of computer code called a beacon that could be inserted into the computers, which were made by the German company Siemens and an Iranian manufacturer, to map their operations. The idea was to draw the equivalent of an electrical blueprint of the Natanz plant, to understand how the computers control the giant silvery centrifuges that spin at tremendous speeds. The connections were complex, and unless every circuit was understood, efforts to seize control of the centrifuges could fail. Eventually the beacon would have to “phone home” — literally send a message back to the headquarters of the National Security Agency that would describe the structure and daily rhythms of the enrichment plant. Expectations for the plan were low; one participant said the goal was simply to “throw a little sand in the gears” and buy some time. Mr. Bush was skeptical, but lacking other options, he authorized the effort. Breakthrough, Aided by Israel It took months for the beacons to do their work and report home, complete with maps of the electronic directories of the controllers and what amounted to blueprints of how they were connected to the centrifuges deep underground. Then the N.S.A. and a secret Israeli unit respected by American intelligence officials for its cyberskills set to work developing the enormously complex computer worm that would become the attacker from within. The unusually tight collaboration with Israel was driven by two imperatives. Israel’s Unit 8200, a part of its military, had technical expertise that rivaled the N.S.A.’s, and the Israelis had deep intelligence about operations at Natanz that would be vital to making the cyberattack a success. But American officials had another interest, to dissuade the Israelis from carrying out their own pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities. To do that, the Israelis would have to be convinced that the new line of attack was working. The only way to convince them, several officials said in interviews, was to have them deeply involved in every aspect of the program. Soon the two countries had developed a complex worm that the Americans called “the bug.” But the bug needed to be tested. So, under enormous secrecy, the United States began building replicas of Iran’s P-1 centrifuges, an aging, unreliable design that Iran purchased from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear chief who had begun selling fuel-making technology on the black market. Fortunately for the United States, it already owned some P-1s, thanks to the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. When Colonel Qaddafi gave up his nuclear weapons program in 2003, he turned over the centrifuges he had bought from the Pakistani nuclear ring, and they were placed in storage at a weapons laboratory in Tennessee. The military and intelligence officials overseeing Olympic Games borrowed some for what they termed “destructive testing,” essentially building a virtual replica of Natanz, but spreading the test over several of the Energy Department’s national laboratories to keep even the most trusted nuclear workers from figuring out what was afoot. Those first small-scale tests were surprisingly successful: the bug invaded the computers, lurking for days or weeks, before sending instructions to speed them up or slow them down so suddenly that their delicate parts, spinning at supersonic speeds, self-destructed. After several false starts, it worked. One day, toward the end of Mr. Bush’s term, the rubble of a centrifuge was spread out on the conference table in the Situation Room, proof of the potential power of a cyberweapon. The worm was declared ready to test against the real target: Iran’s underground enrichment plant. “Previous cyberattacks had effects limited to other computers,” Michael V. Hayden, the former chief of the C.I.A., said, declining to describe what he knew of these attacks when he was in office. “This is the first attack of a major nature in which a cyberattack was used to effect physical destruction,” rather than just slow another computer, or hack into it to steal data. “Somebody crossed the Rubicon,” he said. Getting the worm into Natanz, however, was no easy trick. The United States and Israel would have to rely on engineers, maintenance workers and others — both spies and unwitting accomplices — with physical access to the plant. “That was our holy grail,” one of the architects of the plan said. “It turns out there is always an idiot around who doesn’t think much about the thumb drive in their hand.” In fact, thumb drives turned out to be critical in spreading the first variants of the computer worm; later, more sophisticated methods were developed to deliver the malicious code. The first attacks were small, and when the centrifuges began spinning out of control in 2008, the Iranians were mystified about the cause, according to intercepts that the United States later picked up. “The thinking was that the Iranians would blame bad parts, or bad engineering, or just incompetence,” one of the architects of the early attack said. The Iranians were confused partly because no two attacks were exactly alike. Moreover, the code would lurk inside the plant for weeks, recording normal operations; when it attacked, it sent signals to the Natanz control room indicating that everything downstairs was operating normally. “This may have been the most brilliant part of the code,” one American official said. Later, word circulated through the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog, that the Iranians had grown so distrustful of their own instruments that they had assigned people to sit in the plant and radio back what they saw. “The intent was that the failures should make them feel they were stupid, which is what happened,” the participant in the attacks said. When a few centrifuges failed, the Iranians would close down whole “stands” that linked 164 machines, looking for signs of sabotage in all of them. “They overreacted,” one official said. “We soon discovered they fired people.” Imagery recovered by nuclear inspectors from cameras at Natanz — which the nuclear agency uses to keep track of what happens between visits — showed the results. There was some evidence of wreckage, but it was clear that the Iranians had also carted away centrifuges that had previously appeared to be working well. But by the time Mr. Bush left office, no wholesale destruction had been accomplished. Meeting with Mr. Obama in the White House days before his inauguration, Mr. Bush urged him to preserve two classified programs, Olympic Games and the drone program in Pakistan. Mr. Obama took Mr. Bush’s advice. The Stuxnet Surprise Mr. Obama came to office with an interest in cyberissues, but he had discussed them during the campaign mostly in terms of threats to personal privacy and the risks to infrastructure like the electrical grid and the air traffic control system. He commissioned a major study on how to improve America’s defenses and announced it with great fanfare in the East Room. What he did not say then was that he was also learning the arts of cyberwar. The architects of Olympic Games would meet him in the Situation Room, often with what they called the “horse blanket,” a giant foldout schematic diagram of Iran’s nuclear production facilities. Mr. Obama authorized the attacks to continue, and every few weeks — certainly after a major attack — he would get updates and authorize the next step. Sometimes it was a strike riskier and bolder than what had been tried previously. “From his first days in office, he was deep into every step in slowing the Iranian program — the diplomacy, the sanctions, every major decision,” a senior administration official said. “And it’s safe to say that whatever other activity might have been under way was no exception to that rule.” But the good luck did not last. In the summer of 2010, shortly after a new variant of the worm had been sent into Natanz, it became clear that the worm, which was never supposed to leave the Natanz machines, had broken free, like a zoo animal that found the keys to the cage. It fell to Mr. Panetta and two other crucial players in Olympic Games — General Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Michael J. Morell, the deputy director of the C.I.A. — to break the news to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden. An error in the code, they said, had led it to spread to an engineer’s computer when it was hooked up to the centrifuges. When the engineer left Natanz and connected the computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed. It began replicating itself all around the world. Suddenly, the code was exposed, though its intent would not be clear, at least to ordinary computer users. “We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,” one of the briefers told the president, “and we don’t know if we were part of that activity.” Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. “It’s got to be the Israelis,” he said. “They went too far.” In fact, both the Israelis and the Americans had been aiming for a particular part of the centrifuge plant, a critical area whose loss, they had concluded, would set the Iranians back considerably. It is unclear who introduced the programming error. The question facing Mr. Obama was whether the rest of Olympic Games was in jeopardy, now that a variant of the bug was replicating itself “in the wild,” where computer security experts can dissect it and figure out its purpose. “I don’t think we have enough information,” Mr. Obama told the group that day, according to the officials. But in the meantime, he ordered that the cyberattacks continue. They were his best hope of disrupting the Iranian nuclear program unless economic sanctions began to bite harder and reduced Iran’s oil revenues. Within a week, another version of the bug brought down just under 1,000 centrifuges. Olympic Games was still on. A Weapon’s Uncertain Future American cyberattacks are not limited to Iran, but the focus of attention, as one administration official put it, “has been overwhelmingly on one country.” There is no reason to believe that will remain the case for long. Some officials question why the same techniques have not been used more aggressively against North Korea. Others see chances to disrupt Chinese military plans, forces in Syria on the way to suppress the uprising there, and Qaeda operations around the world. “We’ve considered a lot more attacks than we have gone ahead with,” one former intelligence official said. Mr. Obama has repeatedly told his aides that there are risks to using — and particularly to overusing — the weapon. In fact, no country’s infrastructure is more dependent on computer systems, and thus more vulnerable to attack, than that of the United States. It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran. This article is adapted from “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,” to be published by Crown on Tuesday.

From maleki, avoiding Iran conflict

It is good to see maleki is making good use of his time at MIT. I only wish he were more forthcoming on other issues. Pay attention to maleki, I have a feeling he will impact Iranian affairs in a big way soon. Peter II, Khan-e-Mazendaran How to Avoid a War With Iran It won’t be easy -- but it sure beats the alternative. BY MATTHEW BUNN, ABBAS MALEKI | MAY 21, 2012 Observers would be forgiven for dismissing negotiations over Iran's nuclear program as Kabuki theater. Despite years of on-again, off-again efforts, after all, fears of war continue to simmer. Such frustrations are understandable -- but they may not be entirely justified. Despite real obstacles, there is a serious chance for progress if both sides come to the table willing to compromise and focused on a step-by-step approach that gives each side real gains, builds confidence, and allows more time for talks on the harder issues. The next round of negotiations between Iran and world powers, slated for May 23 in Baghdad, is crucial -- though only the start of a long road. No one could claim these negotiations will be easy. Iran and the United States have been locked in mutual hostility since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, and this enmity has produced deep mistrust and tough political constraints on both sides. In a U.S. presidential election year, compromise will be difficult, as no candidate can be seen as "soft" on Iran -- and in Iran, which has a presidential election next year, no faction can be seen as advocating retreat in the face of Western pressure. For a deal to work, both sides have to see it as genuinely serving their national interests. Nevertheless, as an American and an Iranian, both of us patriots, we believe that a negotiated deal is possible. Although genuine clashes of interests are at stake, we believe our countries would be better served by such a pact, however imperfect, than by continued stalemate or military conflict. For Iran, the status quo means ongoing sanctions, limited access to foreign investment and technology, and the looming danger of military strikes. For the United States, stalemate means no negotiated limits on the Iranian nuclear program, continued high oil prices (reflecting the risks of conflict), and no resolution of U.S.-Iranian disputes over terrorism, Israel, and more. If the confrontation deteriorated into a military conflict, it would be a disaster for both countries' security. Strikes by the United States or Israel would risk an unpredictable regional conflagration and could convince Iran to redouble its nuclear efforts and build covert sites that would be hard to find and strike. To open the path to an accord, the parties must combine the realism of small initial steps with a vision of a long-term rapprochement. Early steps should be designed to build confidence on both sides that it is worth continuing the process, and to buy time for further talks. There are a number of ways both sides could bolster confidence in the negotiating process. Iran should offer to halt its enrichment of uranium to 20 percent U-235, its buildup of larger stocks of 5 percent enriched uranium, and its acquisition of ever-more centrifuges as long as the talks are making progress. As in past proposals, the United States and Europe should offer to provide low-enriched fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor in exchange for Iran's agreement to ship a substantial portion of its enriched uranium out of the country. And Iran should agree to implement the International Atomic Energy Agency's Additional Protocol, which allows for broader international inspections of nuclear facilities, as long as cooperation is moving forward. At the same time, the United States and Europe should offer to lift the new oil and banking sanctions now going into effect -- again, as long as the talks are making progress. Such initiatives would allow each side to say to skeptics in its own camp: Things are no longer getting worse; give us more time. As an early gesture, the United States and Europe could also allow the shipment of desperately needed spare parts for Iran's civilian aircraft, which have been blocked under sanctions for decades, and allow Iranian airliners to refuel and receive normal services in Europe. Iran could commit to prevent any arms or other assistance from flowing to armed groups in Iraq or Afghanistan. The sides could also negotiate a pact to prevent inadvertent clashes in the Persian Gulf and work together to stop the flow of heroin from Afghanistan into Iran. None of these interim steps, of course, will be able to produce a breakthrough unless both Iran and the United States share a long-term vision of forging a more productive relationship. The nuclear deal that would be a part of this vision would inevitably involve some level of continued enrichment in Iran under agreed-upon constraints. Iran would agree to far-reaching inspections and transparency, including resolving concerns about past work that the West suspects may have been weapons-related. The United States and its negotiating partners would agree that Iran's admissions about past activities will not be punished. As part of a nuclear agreement, the United States and Europe should help Iran replace the aging Tehran Research Reactor with a modern facility outside densely populated Tehran -- and Iran should agree to suspend construction of the Arak heavy-water reactor, which the West fears is well suited for plutonium production, as it would no longer be needed. It's not only the nuclear issue that divides Iran and the United States. The two countries will have to talk directly to address the many other issues that divide them, including terrorism, sanctions, regional security, and more. All participants, including the United States, should assure Iran that they will not attack or threaten to overthrow Iran's government as long as Iran complies with the nuclear deal and does not commit or sponsor aggression. Iran, for its part, proposed a nonaggression pact with its Persian Gulf neighbors after the Iran-Iraq War. Both sides are likely to fear that the other will cheat on its commitments in such a deal. Both will have to take some risks for peace, while seeking commitments that are clear and verifiable. But there may be a chance to build a virtuous cycle: Once the benefits begin to flow, it will likely be harder for those who would call for ripping up the deal and returning to confrontation to win the argument. As difficult as it is, both sides must come to Baghdad this month ready to offer clear, verifiable first steps on the path toward compromise -- and away from the abyss of armed confrontation. Save big when you subscribe to FP. Mark Wilson/Getty Images Matthew Bunn, an associate professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, is a former nonproliferation advisor in the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy. Abbas Maleki, an associate professor of energy policy at Sharif University of Technology in Tehran and Robert Wilhelm fellow at the Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is a former deputy foreign minister of Iran.

Two radio shows advocate Iran attack

Yesterday Michael savage discussed on his radio show that Iran would be attacked in September to help the democrats win the presidential election. The day before joe Jacobs discussed with George Noory that Iran would experience major upheavals in September. That two prominent radio personalities would say this shows that an attack on Iran is being considered in America, and with Iran’s leadership dealing with much infighting this is something to worry about.

Operation Praying Mantis

A preview from my upcoming book in the works, on the anniversarry of OPM

April 18 1988 would turn out to be one of the most disastrous days in the history of the Iranian Navy. On that day an American Naval force composed of 12 warships, led by the USS Coronado LPD-11 approached Bandar Abbas. Battle commenced when Surface Action Group Bravo, composed of the USS Merrill DD-976, USS Lynde McCormick DDG-8, and USS Trenton LPD-14 approached the Sassan Oil Platform. Within 20 minutes of approaching the Sassan Oil Platform Surface Action Group Bravo opened fire on it, silencing the Sassan Oil Platform’s guns and a Marine detachment was send to destroy the Sassan Oil Platform at 9:25 AM, which it did without resistance. However around 12:50 PM, two Iranian F-4 fighter jets made an attack run on Surface Action Group Bravo. Though they were within missile range the pilots reconsidered their attack once they detected that the USS Lynde McCormick had locked it’s fire control radar on the jets. The polits of those jets decided not to take any risks and abandoned their attack. Once Surface Action Group Bravo had destroyed the Sassan Oil Platform it was ordered to destroy the Raksh Oil Platform.

Around the same time Surface Action Group Charlie, composed of the USS Wainwright CG-28, USS Bagley FF-1069, and USS Simpson FFG-56 began their attack on the Sirri Oil Platform. As they made their attack the IS Joshan P-225 made an attack on The USS Wainwright and Iranian PT Craft sortied against American and foreign ships in the Gulf. At 12:15 PM the IS Joshan fires one of it’s Harpoon missiles at the USS Wainwright but misses, despite their brave attack the crew are not used to engaging other fleets in pitched battles. The USS Wainwright and USS Simpson fire their missiles at the IS Joshan disabling it’s main armament before Surface Action Group Charlie sank the IS Joshan with their guns. Determined to avenge the IS Joshan two Iranian F-4’s make an attack on the USS Wainwright which fired at the Iranian jets. One of the Iranian F-4’s was hit on the wing by a SM-2 Missile from the USS Wainwright, and both jets returned to Bandar Abbas, not wanting to continue the action further.

Soon it would be the turn of the Americans to launch air attacks of their own. Around 1:30 PM reports of Iranian PT Craft attacks on the Panamanian Cargo Ship Scan Bay prompt the USS Enterprise CVN-65 to launch an air strike on the Iranian PT Craft in the form of a F-14 and 2 A-6E jet fighters, who begin attacking the Iranian PT Craft around 2:25 PM near Abu Musa.

This only prompted the Iranians to dispatch their Frigates. The first to engage the Americans was the IS Sahand F-74 which made an attack run on the USS Joseph Strauss DDG-16, which along with the USS O’Brien DD-975 and USS Jack Williams FFG-24 comprised Surface Action Group Delta. Bearing down on the USS Joseph Strauss the IS Sahand fired at 2 A-6E jets, and the jets and the USS Joseph Strauss fired back at the IS Sahand, launching 3 Harpoon Missiles and 4 Laser Guided Bombs at the IS Sahand around 3:30 PM. The hits from these bombs and missiles set the IS Sahand ablaze, and by evening the magazine had exploded as a result of the fires and all that the commanding officer of the IS Sahand can do is to maneuver the ship towards shallow water to make it easier for the crew to abandon ship.

Around the same time an AH-1T Helicopter flying reconnaissance from the USS Trenton got mixed up in the crossfire and their helicopter crashes 15 miles southwest of Abu Musa. Despite this the Americans continue to hold control of the conflict. This is lost on the IS Sabalan F-73 left Bandar Abbas around 5:00 PM. Within minutes it is firing it’s harpoon missiles at the A-6E’s it sees, and by 5:15 one of the A-6E fighters drops a bomb down the funnel of the IS Sabalan, causing damage to the engines and soon the IS Sabalan is being towed back to Bandar Abbas.

At the end of April 18, 1988 the American navy had established itself master of the Persian Gulf. That they were facing an Iranian Navy and military that was smaller was no real reason for their victory. Since 1978 the Iranian Military had been severely tested, it’s ranks depleted of it’s best soldiers, and those still serving in Iran’s military tired by the past decade of conflict. The Iranian navy took it the hardest. It was dependent on imports and captured material for new Ships and most weapons, and those Officers and Sailors operating the Ships Iran had did not always have proper training in combat situations. Being used to fighting Iraqi forces who were worse trained, they cracked facing the Americans, and Operation Praying Mantis was to demonstrate this all too well. In many ways Operation Praying Mantis was like Salamis. In both instances Iran lost due to the composition of it’s soldiers, however while at Salamis the flaw was the heterogeneous composition of the Iranian soldiers, the flaw that hit Iran the hardest during Operation Praying Mantis was the overworked and undertrained soldiers who faced the Americans. More would be to come for Iran during the remaining months of khomeini’s rein of terror over Iran.

Zendran occupy charges disposed

I just came from court.
The state dropped the assault and disorderly charges against me from occupy providence, however they did find me guilty of resisting arrest and gave me 9 months probation.
Peter Z

Zimmerman considers apology

This is just another sign that Zimmerman is being railroaded by the
system because of black supremacist thugs intimidating them just because
this man defended himself. Last time I checked running through
someone's backyard while wearing a hoodie and breaking someone's face
for no reason is thug behavior and trayvon got what he deserved. I dare
the same people who call this racism to see how they would react in the
same situation Zimmerman was in.
Peter Z


http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/13-04-2012/121081-zimmerman_martin-0/#
George Zimmerman to apologize to Trayvon Martin's family

13.04.2012 13:27
George Zimmerman to apologize to Trayvon Martin's family. 47074.jpeg
AP photo

The lawyer for George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain who was
charged with second degree murder in the death of unarmed black teen
Trayvon Martin, said that the 17-year-old's death "weighs on" Zimmerman
and suggested his client might apologize to Martin's family.
"Understand that George fully well realizes that he was involved in some
way in the death of another young man," lawyer Mark O'Mara told ABC
News.
"He does not take the result of that altercation lightly at all. That
weighed on him, I would imagine, more than the isolation, more than the
last six weeks, more probably than the threat of what is to come in the
system," O'Mara said.
Zimmerman spent his first night in prison Thursday in protective
custody, where he could be watched at all times. Law enforcement
sources told ABC News, the 28-year-old "wept quite a bit" at night.
O'Mara suggested that Zimmerman may apologize to Martin's family, says
KBOI.


Attorney Mark O'Mara, who represents Zimmerman, told CNN's Piers Morgan
late Thursday that one of his immediate goals is to "bring down the
level of anger, animosity, just frustrations, emotions" that are on the
periphery of the case.
O'Mara said there are two sides of the case, a legal one and a human
one.
"We have the human tragedy side of it. We are going to try to bridge
that if we can," O'Mara said. "There are words that need to be said."
Special prosecutor Angela Corey, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott to
investigate the case, said she will ensure that the judge or jury
deciding the case will get only "the relevant, admissible evidence on
which they can then base their decisions."
"Let me emphasize that we do not prosecute by pressure or petition," she
said.
Both the defense and prosecution said they had no intention of trying
the case in the court of public opinion, though both conceded there is
extreme interest, informs CNN.

Zimmerman and his family have maintained that he was trailing Martin
because the young man appeared suspicious. Martin then disappeared from
view, only to re-emerge, confront him and assault him, they say. In the
fight, they contend, he shot Martin in self-defense. Florida's expansive
self-defense law, Stand Your Ground, was cited initially as a reason why
no charges were brought.
O'Mara said self-defense cases were not new to him; he said that he had
handled dozens, but that none had gone to trial as Stand Your Ground
cases. He has also tried high-profile death-penalty cases.
He said that self-defense would probably be a "facet" of Zimmerman's
defense, according to The MIT Tech.



Copyright © 1999-2012, «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in
whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions
and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view
of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

Country’s coinage to watch for 2012

These countries are doing things with their coinage which are sending messages to the World, and not just in matters of finance.
Russia; 2012 sees two very important anniversaries in Russia. The 200th anniversary of the victory at Borodino and over Napoleon’s invasion, and the 1150th anniversary of the founding of Russia, all of which are being honored on precious metal and base metal Roubles. Interestingly Russia is commemorating the 150th anniversary of the birth of Peter Stolypin, who was born in 1863, in 2012, probably not to conflict with the Viktor Chernomyrdin commemorative to be issued in 2013, and apparently Russia is not saying if their Russian Federation 10 Rouble series is being put on hiatus. One thing is noticeable, Russia and other CIS nations have been having trouble distributing their coins aborad, mainly because of trouble from british commonwealth nations.
British commonwealth; Two major themes are dominating precious metal and base metal coinage in 2012. They are queen Elizabeth’s diamond jubilee, the second is the centennial of the Titanic disaster. Interestingly Canada is ceasing production of pennies this year as well.
USA; This year American mint and proof sets are hot items, as Presidential Dollars are no longer being made for circulation. Interesting 2012, like 2008, is an election year in America, and statehood quarters for Hawaii and Alaska will be issued for 2012, though not in the order they were in 2008. Also interesting is the precious metal commemoratives for the Stat-Spangled Banner are being issued in 2012 but none contain the text of that poem used for the national anthem.
EU: Austria is finally getting in on the “statehood quarter” game, one year after Spain issued their own version of the statehood quarter program. So far foreign versions of this program have been imitated by Russia, Germany, Japan, Australia, Finland, Venezuela, to name the more prominent countries involved.

Worldwide Carrier news roundup

This news is important. While the world focuses on Russia and China the rest of the World is very active. While the news from India and Brazil is to be expected, Japan is clearly preparing for some kind of war. Most definitely is Australia, and the Canberra being completed so quick shows Australia is planning some kind of offensive war, either on Iran or somewhere in the Pacific. Notice the news from Turkey as well, though this comes after Iran’s announcement about developing the ability to build a Carrier, Turkey is scrapping the ex-hms invincible, and may be studying it’s design.


Indian Navy to Buy 4 Landing Ships
25.11.2011
Text: World Arms Trade Analytic Center
Photo: Juan Carlos I type landing ship. wikipedia.org
Indian Navy issued a tender for 4 landing helicopter-carrying dock ships.

According to Indian defense Ministry A.K. Antony, national defense procurement council has already approved acquirement of four large-size landing ships.

As for the ministry, these ships will improve Indian Navy's landing capabilities and make possible to conduct rescue operations in regions suffered from natural disasters and emergencies.

According to Mer et Marine, Indian Navy command had consulted with domestic shipbuilders, but they could not offer an adequate project. For this reason, the navy sent requests to foreign companies.

As is expected, the tender will be attended by French, Italian, Spanish, and South Korean companies.

Most probably, French DCNS would offer Mistral-class assault landing ship operated by French Navy and purchased by Russia, Spanish Navantia – Juan Carlos I type (Project BPE - Buque de Proyeccion Estrategica), Italian Fincantieri – Multifunction Ship (MS), and South Korean Hanjin Heavy Industries – Dokdo class landing helicopter carrier.

DCNS and Fincantieri have a kind of advantage because they have already signed naval-related contracts with Indian Navy. DCNS builds Scorpene-class submarines and Fincantieri – Deepak-type fuel replenishment tankers. Besides, the Italian company takes part in construction of the first Indian aircraft carrier.

In Sept 2011 Indian Navy and state-led company Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (Calcutta) signed a contract for construction of 8 landing boats LCU to protect islands better and strengthen amphibious fleet. The boats are expected to join Indian Navy in 2013-2015.



Japan To Build Another Carrier
16.09.2011
Text: RusNavy.com
Illustration: Project 22DDH helicopter carrier. WW Aircraft Carriers
Japan plans to build another helicopter-carrying ship in reply to China's acquirement of its first home-made flattop, reports Korean information agency Cho Sun.

The information that China had started construction of its first aircraft carrier was circulated by Chinese media on Wednesday. Reportedly, the first Chinese-built carrier would be 320-meter long accomodating 50 deck-based aircrafts.

As a reaction, Japan intends to build a helicopter carrier of new type – Project 22DDH – with displacement of 19,500 tons. Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force currently operates two new heli-carriers Hyuga and Ise commissioned in March 2009 and March 2011 respectively. However, a Project 22DDH carrier planned to be put in service in 2015 will be significantly larger with length of 248 meters and 14 helicopters on board. The ship's construction is evaluated as $1.04 bln.

Carriers of the previous type have length of 197 meters, displacement of 13,500 tons, and 11 helicopters on board. Despite smaller size comparing to the Chinese aircraft carrier, the Japanese ship will be equipped with the most up-to-date US-made arms including new onboard air/missile defense system designed by Raytheon.

During WW2 Japanese Navy did operate aircraft carriers, but having lost the war, it renounced the concept of such ships shifting to helicopter carriers which were more effective against basic threat of the post-war period, i.e. Chinese and Soviet submarines. Helicopters based on new ships are mostly ASW-oriented as well. In its turn, China is aware of Japan's possible acquirement of American aircrafts F-35B which easily transform any ASW helicopter-carrying ship into attack aircraft carrier.

Japan seems strongly about to modify Project 22DDH into a full-fledged aircraft carrier. However, analysts regard such possibility with skepticism, since having an aircraft carrier is inexpedient for the country with overall Navy's manpower of 45,000 and being in tight economic situation.

In addition, Japan implements several large military projects; JPY 39 bln have been spent for national 5-gen fighter which is expected to take off in 2014, and JPY 15 bln – for unmanned vehicles and various robots.



Australian Defense Ministry: Construction of Heli-Carriers Goes Ahead of Schedule
13.12.2011
Text: RusNavy.com
Photo: Landing ship HMAS Canberra. Australian Defense Ministry
Construction of the lead Canberra-class helicopter carrier at Spanish shipyard Navantia is on schedule, the second ship HMAS Adelaide is built ahead of schedule, said Australian defense minister Stephen Smith and minister for defence material Jason Clare on Dec 13 at commissioning ceremony of landing ship HMAS Choules, reports Australian Navy's website.

Recall that Australian Navy tied a $3-bln contract for two prospective helicopter carriers with Navantia in 2007. The hulls are built by Navantia, bridges – by BAE Systems at Williamstown Shipyard in Melbourne; ship assembling will be also carried out by BAE Systems.

At the moment, Navantia has constructed all 105 sections of Canberra's hull, launched her, and conducts finishing works including assemblage of medical compartment, living accommodations, and store rooms. The hull is expected to leave Spain on heavy transport ship in July 2012 and arrive in Melbourne in Aug 2012.

Four bridges and 3 mast elements of HMAS Canberra have been built at Williamstown Shipyard since June 2011. The hull-to-island attachment is scheduled in the end of 2012.

Kiel for HMAS Adelaide was laid down in Feb 2011. By now, 60 out of 105 sections have been mounted on the slipway, 27 are under construction, and 18 are being painted before putting on the slipway. The ship is expected to be launched in third quarter of 2012.

Over 400,000 working hours were spent on the ships' construction in Australia.

Canberra-class landing ships will be the largest warships ever operated by Australian Navy. Displacement is 27,851 tons; length is 230.8 meters; beam is 32 meters; draft is 7.18 meters; speed is 20.5 knots; crew is 243 men (max 279 men), troop capacity is 978 men (max 1,124 men); deck capacity is 3,290 sq meters (up to 100 armored vehicles), helicopter hangar capacity is 990 square meters; air wing is 12-24 helicopters; armament is 4 x 25-mm deck-based stabilized gun mounts.


Brazil would possibly buy two Mistrals
17.05.2011
Text: Military Parity
Photo: Mistral class assault landing ship. flot2017.com
Brazilian Navy nourishes an idea to purchase at least two assault landing ships. Those ships should have a "double football ground" deck and be capable to perform wide range of missions – transport infantry, tanks, helicopters, landing craft, missiles, have onboard hospital, and carry out functions of a "sophisticated analytic center", i.e. command ship.

Each of those vessels costs today $600-850 mln. Procurement plan of such ships is considered to be "ambitious". According to Brazilian Navy Commander ADM Julio Moura Neto, acquirement of those ships depends on budgetary funds available; the ship's type has not been chosen so far".

The most competitive suppliers are the US and France. Reportedly, France has developed advanced variant of Mistral class assault landing ship. Russia is about to purchase four such ships.

Assault landing ships must be capable to transport 900-1,400 men of landing party, 280 self-propelled vehicles, and 30 helicopters at the range of up to 5,000 km; operate 10 days autonomously 100 miles away from landing zone. Such ship should have early warning helicopters to support fighters covering the ship. In high seas the ship should be protected by escort ships.

An assault landing ship is virtually autonomous. Apart from helicopters, tanks, armored transport vehicles, and hundreds of marines on board, such ship has a hospital capable to conduct any surgical operations. Sophisticated electronics interfaced with encrypted communication satellite systems is located in command post at the level of 15th floor.

There are some political reasons in favor of these big ships. As is known, Brazil strives for being a member of UN Security Council, and such ships would raise prestige of the country; old aircraft carrier San Paulo plays no part any more. Brazilian Navy plans to purchase 61 ships within 20 years. When having assault landing ships in inventory, Brazil will be able to attend various multinational transcontinental operations, which is a requirement to the world-leading countries.


Turkey is capable to build a carrier – national defense industry
13.05.2011
Text: World Arms Trade Analytic Center
Turkish shipbuilding industry has sufficient capabilities to build an aircraft carrier, said director of Turkey's defense industry department Murad Bayar.

According to him, to create carrier strike group, Turkey should have two new destroyers, one submarine, four missile boats, 40 deck-based fighters, and multipurpose/antisubmarine/antisurface helicopters. The crew of a carrier (depending on dimensions) may number 1,000-5,000 men.

At present, Turkish defense industry covers requirements of national armed forces on 52.1%. Its total turnover has reached $2.7 bln, export – $ 853 mln, annual expenditure on research and development is evaluated as $600 mln.

Getting it right; Naval Ship classifications

If there is one thing that continues to plague people in naval Affairs it is the classification of ships. Namely the fact that a naval force will classify a Warship in a way that does not properly denote it’s fighting capabilitiy. This I have noticed too often today and can elucidate many excellent examples. Among the major culprits are the Iranian, EU/NATO naval forces, and Janes Defense.
Most famously the Iranian Navy has the habit of calling it’s Frigates Destroyers, it’s Corvettes and Fast Attack Craft Frigates, and it’s Command/Logistical Support Ship Kharg a Battleship. While the Kharg can deploy commando units which can take out a Battleship it certainly does not have the armament of a Battleship. In the other instances Iran’s navy has been basing it’s classification on size rather than fighting capability. For Instance Iran classifies the Jamaran class and Alvand class FFG’s as Destroyers, yet the only Destroyers they have the same fighting capability as are the WWII clunkers operated by countries like Pakistan and Taiwan, the Canadian Iroquois class DDG’s which are slightly larger than the Jamaran and most Frigates but have a fire control system more advanced than any FFG, and the Sachsen, Brandenburg, De Zeven Provincen, and Alvaro de Bazan Destroyers, which NATO classifies as frigates, but which in reality have an armament heavier than most Destroyers, in the case of the first two a reduced weapons payload to comply with an antiquated WWII treaties, the same which has plagued Japan, which I will describe later. Interestingly, by this classification Iran has both inspired foreign powers to step up it’s naval arms, for instance Saudi Arabia was going to buy some Type 45 class DDG’s from the UK because of Jamaran until the specifications of Jamaran became public, and continued scorn.
However, a similar type of scorn exists Worldwide for the EU and NATO’s similar underclassification of their Warships. In this instance tonnage and displacement take precedence over fighting capability when deciding how to classify a Warship. In doing so they are giving the false impression that how much a Warship weighs is more important than how it performs in a combat situation. For instance if the FGS Sachsen were to find itself in a combat situation with either a Jamaran class FFG or an Arleigh Burke class DDG the Sachsen could easily neutralize either Warship in a combat situation, not because of it’s tonnage but because of it’s armament. The fact that not only Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain, but also Sweden, Denmark, France, Argentina, and other NATO countries do this shows a lack of understanding of the combat role a Warship plays, focusing instead on the political aspect of such names. In the case of Germany there is a degree of understanding with the constitution they had to adopt after WWII, though with the current World situation this constitution is anachronistic, as is the classification by the other NATO powers. In the case of such ships like the Swedish Visby and Danish Theits class Frigates to call the former a Corvette and the latter a Patrol Boat is simply ridiculous. Not as ludicrious as the British, with their dearth of overclassification names, like offshore patrol vessel, inshore patrol vessel
Most notably Russia and Japan have been messing with these NATO classifications with their new warships. For instance the Russians classify the new Admiral Gorshkov Destroyers as Frigates, the Tatarstan, Steregushchy, and Gremyashchy classes of Frigates as Corvettes, though in the case of the Steregushchy the Russian Navy does call them Frigates on their website, though in doing so the Russians are belittling the combat capabilities of these ships. India behaves in a similar manner, calling the Kamrota, Kora, and Khurki classes of Frigates Corvettes, and the Shivalik class of Warships could be classified as Destroyers with their combat capability.
With the Japanese for them to call their new Hyuga class Helicopter Carriers Destroyers and their Osumi class Amphibious Assault Ships Landing Craft is ludicrous, though like Germany Japan has a constitution given to them after WWII which limits their armed forces, and like Germany the current World situation makes this constitution anachronistic.
Curiously the US navy is now getting in on this, by classifying the new Freedom and Independence classes of Frigates as Littoral Combat Ships. While this demonstrates one of the purposes of construction, the terminology is overelaborate.
When naming classes of Warships one should make sure the name fits the function, and not some political agenda. This is something even the best people in Naval affairs forget.

Update on more shit u/watson weirdness

Recently I learned that simmons is not the only shakeup at brown. Additionally the watson institute has recieved it's fourth director in the four years since I left. Additionally david kertzer has left as brown provost, though he is still with the anthropology dpt.
More noticeable is that brown has pulled their international writers fellowship program, shortly after I talked Shahriar Mandanipour about the misdeeds at brown. Interestingly enough gusenbauer has left watson, though the aga khan has resumed giving money to the middle east studies department, full of the same discredible zionist/cfr asskissers.
Peter Z

Questionable unicef food aid by british and danish royals

What gets me is the fact that both the danish crown couple as well as wills and kate would not eat the prepared genetically modified food, nor would kate try the gm peanut paste, which tells me that both the british and danish are aware this gm food is some form of bioweapon. Bear in mind the health problems gm food causes, or the damage that gm food, mainly monsanto gm food, does to the environment. Not to mention the blatant disregard of non-Europeans shown by both the windsors and glucksburgs, including wills and kate scheduling their wedding on what would have been Prince Ali-Reza's birthday had he not been murdered the January before, or how danish troops have committed acts of brutality against people in Libya.
Peter Z


2 November 2011 Last updated at 14:17 ET
William and Kate in Unicef visit to Denmark aid centre
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are visiting Denmark to learn more about the work of children's charity Unicef in East Africa.
An estimated 12 million people in the region are at risk of starvation because of food shortages, and famine has been declared in Somalia.
The royal couple are touring Unicef's emergency supply centre in Copenhagen.
The UK is giving £200m in aid to the affected region, £72m of which has been raised through public donations.
Raise profile
After their arrival at the supply centre, the couple were offered a taste of the special high-protein peanut paste which is sent to malnourished children in Africa.
The duke took a sample before passing it on to the duchess, who declined to taste it and passed it over to Denmark's Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary, who accompanied them on the visit.
The crown prince and crown princess also tasted a multivitamin paste, but no-one tried the tray of muffins made with a corn soya blend.
They were given a briefing by Peter Hailey, senior nutritional manager at Unicef, on the crisis threatening the region and details on nutrition and food being provided for people in the area.
After the briefing the two royal couples were taken into the supply centre's warehouse, which is the size of three football pitches, where they helped to pack boxes.
Prince William said he hoped his visit would raise the profile of the charity's work in the region.
'Horrendous situation'
"I think what has touched me the most is probably the fact there's an incredible amount being done," he said. "Unicef are leading the way and they're doing a fantastic job.
"Sadly there's still a lot more to do and that's why we're here today, to try our best to put Unicef ahead of the system again and get as many people as possible realising the truly horrendous situation going on in East Africa."
The duchess said she wanted to remind people who may have forgotten about the crisis.
"I think it was initially a very big story," she said. "A lot of people did hear about it, but I think because it has been going on, people have perhaps lost track of this terrible situation.
"So I think this, hopefully, will put the light back on this crisis.
She added that she was "shocked by some of the statistics and I think other people would be if they'd lost track of the story".
Airport visit
After their tour of the site they attended a private reception at Unicef, which included Unicef ambassador Sir Roger Moore.
Speaking after their meeting, Sir Roger said: "We just discussed what they had seen and what their thoughts were and how glad they were that they came to support this extraordinary appeal.
"They are both very interested in east Africa, they were engaged in Kenya, it's so close to their hearts.
"It was just reiterating their passion for this cause and I think it must be a passion otherwise the royals wouldn't just give up a day of their very busy lives and the high demands there are on them for attending all sorts of functions - and that's apart from the RAF duties of the duke."
The royal couple then arrived at Copenhagen Airport to view a British Airways Boeing 747 before it left to make a relief flight carrying 45 tonnes of aid, including emergency medical supplies, to East Africa.
BA has lent the aircraft to Unicef for a flight to Nairobi in Kenya where the items will be distributed by the charity and other aid agencies.
The duke and duchess spoke to British Airways staff about the amount of aid being taken on board before being shown the interior of the aircraft and the overhead bins full of boxes of supplies.
David Bull, executive director of Unicef UK, said the supplies would help to save the lives of malnourished children.
The worst drought in East Africa in 60 years has resulted in severe food shortages across Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti.
By going to the Unicef centre in the Danish capital, Prince William and Catherine are seeking to maintain a global focus on what is a long-term situation.
Third engagement
A spokesman for St James's Palace said the visit was instigated by the duke and duchess.
He said: "This visit has come about through a mutual meeting of minds between the two royal couples.
"The crown prince and crown princess have already shown a very keen interest in the terrible tragedy that's unfolding in East Africa and the crown princess has been to Kenya.
"The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have personal links in Kenya - they have friends there, they got engaged there, they've visited many times and they've followed the tragedy unfolding not only on the news but also from people they know on the ground."
BBC royal correspondent Peter Hunt, in Copenhagen, says William and his wife attract intense attention wherever they go in the world.
William wants to exploit this interest and focus it on the plight of people living in East Africa, our correspondent adds.
This is the couple's first joint humanitarian mission and their third official engagement since their wedding in April. They flew out on Wednesday morning and will return on the evening of the same day.

Last deployment of the USS Enterprise

People forget the history the Enterprise has had, be it it's involvement
in operation preying mantis, the gulf wars and war on terror, and the
recent attacks on Libya. Despite this being a historic ship it's hull
is very vulnerable to attack, and although this ship deserves to be
preserved, should it be preserved as a museum or a wreck like the
Rafaello in front of the Bushehr reactor. Something could happen with
this ship.
Peter Z


Carrier Enterprise leaves for final deployment

By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Mar 12, 2012 5:30:34 EDT

ABOARD THE ENTERPRISE — Accompanied by three blasts of the ship’s horn,
the oldest active warship in the Navy shoved off from Norfolk Naval
Base’s Pier 12 at 11:50 a.m. on a bright, mild Sunday. As big ships
will, the carrier Enterprise moved almost imperceptibly at first,
gradually gaining momentum as she moved silently away from the pier and
backward out of her berth.

A surprisingly small crowd of well-wishers, kept off the pier by
security, watched with little fanfare as the ship’s crew lined the
flight deck and looked back. A group of U.S. Marines, on board as part
of a Marine strike fighter squadron, stood front and center at the
foremost end of the deck. It was a minor blast from the past and
harkened back to the days of the Enterprise’s youth when Marines formed
a portion of every major Navy ship’s company.

A group of officers on board the amphibious ship Mesa Verde, berthed
across from the carrier, rushed to have their picture taken one last
time with the distinctive island structure of the Enterprise in the
background. On the opposite side of the berth, a small group of sailors
gathered on the flight deck of the Navy’s newest carrier, the George H.
W. Bush, to watch the historic departure.

Two helicopters from Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 11 lifted off
from the Big E’s flight deck, carrying Navy photographers to document
the 50-year-old ship’s departure on her 22nd and final deployment.
Although it was a Sunday, virtually no spectator craft were present as
the Enterprise shifted into forward gear and headed down the familiar
Norfolk ship channel to the sea. Only a Coast Guard security patrol
escorted the carrier as she passed a handful of spectators on nearby
Fort Monroe.

Off Virginia Beach, the Enterprise — one of the most recognizable ships
ever built — passed a long line of nondescript merchant ships waiting to
enter the Hampton Roads port. Flight operations began as a dozen F/A-18
jets from the four strike fighter squadrons of Carrier Air Wing 1 came
aboard to recertify their flight deck qualifications. The thunder of jet
aircraft continued into the night as the Enterprise steamed under a
million stars and a phosphorescent wake trailed behind.

More than 5,000 sailors on board the ship quickly adopted a seagoing
routine — stowing gear, checking equipment and working out wherever they
could. A workmanlike atmosphere prevailed throughout the 1,123-foot-long
ship.

Shortly after leaving Norfolk, ocean storms already were causing
navigators to adjust the planned course for the Enterprise and her
escorts to cross the Atlantic. The ships would maneuver to avoid the
heavy seas as best they could.

Behind, the strike group was leaving a country where the media featured
daily stories about a virtual civil war in Syria, a deteriorating
political situation in Afghanistan and increasing signs of some sort of
military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

Ahead, the Enterprise and her group faced at least seven and a half
months of steaming on the other side of the world, in a region where
those stories could become far more real at any given moment.