US offers Israel advanced arms for not attacking Iran

So, was it all just a great big bluff?--jef

Published: 08 March, 2012 - RT

The US has proposed that Israel withhold from waging an assault on Iran till the next presidential term in America in exchange for advanced weaponry, reports Israeli Maariv newspaper.

The proposal was made during the visit of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington, the newspaper says, citing unnamed diplomats and intelligence sources.

It adds the Americans have offered Tel Aviv the latest versions of bunker-busting bombs and aerial tankers to gain tactical advantage over Iran. This would imply Israel’s shelving of plans to attack Iran, evidently until America gets a new president in 2013.

The US diplomats allegedly believe such step would enlarge the “opportunity window” for Israel to try to solve the issue of controversial Iranian nuclear program diplomatically.

Speaking to the Israeli prime minister in the Oval Office on Monday, President Obama once again reaffirmed his personal "unprecedented commitment" to Israel's security.

The newspaper does not report on whether PM Netanyahu agreed to accept the proposal.

On Wednesday Netanyahu told Fox News Channel he actually does not think a war with Iran is inevitable.

"The paradox is that if they actually believe that they are going to face the military option, then you probably will not need the military option," Netanyahu said.

The sides also discussed new steps to be taken to isolate the Islamic Republic internationally even further.

At a media briefing in the White House Obama told journalists that America will apply more pressure on Iran despite the fact that “we provide a door for the Iranian regime to walk through," Obama said.

Israel has been stressing for years that the real aim of the Iranian nuclear program is not peaceful energy, but the creation of an atomic bomb, and furthermore, the destruction of the Jewish state. Tehran has consistently denied such allegations, allowing the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities in an attempt to prove that its nuclear program is solely peaceful.

Hoping to Contact Extraterrestrials? Think Again

(Didn't Hawking already do this bit? Perhaps they've already been here, found us to be ridiculous, and bolted toward greener petri dishes...--jef)

Monday, August 22, 2011

By IB Times Staff Reporter

Astronomers who have been searching for extraterrestrial intelligence for decades are suddenly saying such an encounter might not be a happy one.

Aliens might destroy life on Earth or plan to eat or enslave humans if they sense our civilization was expanding too rapidly and could harm others, according to a latest study.

The scenario was brought up in a joint study by Seth Baum, Jacob Haqq-Misra and Shawn Domagal-Goldman.

Researchers say extraterrestrials might behave the way we humans have behaved whenever we have discovered other previously unknown intelligent beings on Earth, like unfamiliar humans or chimpanzees and gorillas.

"Just as we did to those beings, the extraterrestrials might proceed to kill, infect, dissect, conquer, displace or enslave us, stuff us as specimens for their museums or pickle our skulls and use us for medical research," according to the study, which was published in the journal Acta Astronautica.

Why should we worry about aliens? The simple reason is that if they can find us, they would be more advanced than humans.

"A core concern is that ETI will learn of our presence and quickly travel to Earth to eat or enslave us," the study says.

The authors speculate that extraterrestrials might try to spread their beliefs through evangelism or to use humans for entertainment.

Just because an ETI civilization holds universalist ethics does not mean that it would never seek our harm. This is because ETI may be quite different from us and could conclude that harming us would help maximize whatever they value intrinsically.

For example, if ETI place intrinsic value on lives, then perhaps they could bring about more lives by destroying us and using our resources more efficiently for other lives. Other forms of intrinsic value may cause a universalist ETI to seek our harm or destruction as long as more value is produced without us than with us.

Aliens also could harm or destroy us if they believe we are a threat to other civilizations. Rapidly expanding civilizations may have a tendency to destroy other civilizations in the process, just as humanity has already destroyed many species on Earth.

Though this scenario might seem unlikely given the likelihood of our technological inferiority relative to other civilizations, we would be at the receiving end if ET thinks that our resources could be used more efficiently to generate or retain other civilizations.

Perhaps ETI is observing rapid and destructive expansion on Earth and could become concerned at our trajectory.

ETI might prefer that our civilization change its ways to survive, but if it doubts that our course can be changed, it may seek to preemptively destroy us to protect other civilizations from us.

A preemptive strike would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilization may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand.

"Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilizational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere (e.g. via greenhouse gas emissions), which therefore changes the spectral signature of Earth," the study's authors say, Human civilization affects ecosystems so strongly that some ecologists have begun calling this epoch of Earth's history the anthropocene, a new and unprecedented phase in the planet's history.

If the goal is to maximize ecosystem health, then perhaps it would be better if humanity did not exist, or at least if it existed in significantly reduced form. Since at least some humans believe so, invoking universalist ethical principles, then it is likely that ETI might agree.

But since we don't know what kind of aliens we will end up meeting, there are certain steps humans should take when making contact, the authors urge. Those steps include not sharing details of our biology and DNA structure, and not appearing as if we are rapidly expanding off the Earth.

Tax-Deductible Invasions

How to Wage War and Balance the Budget at the Same Time
By WALTER BRASCH

Millions of Americans gave George W. Bush unquestioned support when he diverted personnel and resources from the war against al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to invade Iraq.

Several million fewer opposed the invasion, stating that the primary mission was to destroy the enemy hiding in Afghanistan that destroyed a part of America and not to expand the war. At first, President Bush claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, capable of destroying Israel and, if placed aboard cargo vessels, could be launched at the east coast of the U.S. When that explanation fizzled, Bush said the invasion was to remove a dictator. Soon, “Regime Change” was the buzz phrase of the month.

Flash forward eight years. Different president. Different country. Same kind of dictatorship. This time, the conservatives have loudly cried that Barack Obama should not have launched missiles at Libya. And many liberals, while protesting expansion of war, were now facing other liberals who supported President Obama’s mini-war of helping oppressed people. The Iraq war has now cost American taxpayers more than $ 780 billion. The two-week (so far) war against Libya has now cost almost $750 million, most of it for Tomahawk missiles.

What’s a president to do? The president’s party spends millions of dollars on polls, none of which are reliable. The president is then forced to put his finger into the wind to see what the voters want—and then does what he wants to do anyway.

Whatever he does will be met by hostility on one side and near-blind support on the other. However, there is a solution. Tax checkoff.

No, that’s not like a distant cousin of the Russian short story writer. It’s a way for the President and the taxpayers to get the biggest bang for their buck.

Let’s say that a president decides he wants to invade some hostile foreign country—Canada, for example. Instead of going into the War Room with his military leadership and plotting how best to meet the strategic, tactical, and political goals of an invasion, he stops for two weeks.

During the first week, all Americans would be sent an email, asking them if they support the invasion of the country that sends Arctic Clippers to the U.S. during Spring. At the end of that week, voting stops. Now, let’s say that 40 percent of Americans think invading Canada is important and the prudent thing to do, but 43 percent oppose it. (The other 17 percent would still be trying to find out why their computers crashed.)

Normally, the president would say that most Americans don’t want to invade Canada and might listen to them. But, the 40 percent are vigorous in their beliefs. No problem.

On the next paycheck will be a question. “Do you support committing American troops to invade Canada, and stopping Arctic Clippers?” Those who answer “yes” will then be assessed a proportion for the costs of that invasion, putting their wallets and purses where their mouths are. If 60 million Americans want war, and the cost is a mere $300 million a week, then each supporter would have about $5 per week deducted from his or her paycheck. It’d hardly be noticeable. Of course, there might be a $5 surcharge for the cost of burying the dead, treating the wounded, and long-term physical and mental rehabilitation. But, hey, even at $10 a week, war is rather cheap. And, most important, all of it is tax-deductible.

Those who don’t support the war wouldn’t have the money deducted. They could decide to support another war later, or pay a “fair share” for more vigorous environmental regulation and enforcement, or even a few dollars a month to allow members of Congress to have junkets. Whatever is raised for junkets would be the total pool available, and would have to be split equally among the 535 members and several thousand critical staffers who, we all know, are the ones who do the work anyhow.

The Tax Checkoff System has one final advantage. With Americans deciding what to support and committing their personal fortunes or anemic savings accounts to the cause, we could wipe out the national debt and war at the same time.

Nobel Committee asked to strip Obama of Peace Prize

++++

Mar 21, 2011 by By Joseph E Lovell.

The Bolivian President and a Russian political leader have launched a campaign to revoke Obama's honour after the US attacked Libya.

Liberal Democratic Party of Russia leader and Vice-Chairman of the State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky released a statement today calling for the Nobel Prize Committee to take back the honour bestowed on US President Barack Obama in 2009.

Zhirinovsky said the attacks were "another outrageous act of aggression by NATO forces and, in particular, the United States," and that the attacks demonstrated a "colonial policy" with "one goal: to establish control over Libyan oil and the Libyan regime." He said the prize was now hypocritical as a result.

Bolivian President Evo Morales echoed the call: "How is it possible that a Nobel Peace Prize winner leads a gang to attack and invade? This is not a defence of human rights or self-determination."

Morales won the Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights in 2006.

He is amongst a number of left-leaning Latin American leaders who have denounced the attacks against Libya. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and Cristina Fernandez of Argentina have all criticised western media coverage of the Libyan crisis.

Morales and Chavez repeated calls for peace talks with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples." The Committee praised the "change in the international climate" affected by Obama's presidency. In his Nobel Lecture, he discussed the "hard truth" of the inevitability of war, saying: "There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified." A message has been widely retweeted on Twitter today: "Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined."

US Begins Invasion, Launches 112 Tomahawk Missiles into Libya

(Obviously this is not news to anyone, but for myself, I am documenting on my blog this, the 3rd war in which the US is involved. Protecting innocent civilians is one thing when done honestly, but this is just another invasion of an oil rich middle eastern country. Sorry, but it doesn't seem like we are the good guys, and history will not view the US as anything but an aggressive provincial entity that profits from invading smaller weaker nations. Obama campaigned against war--that he would end the wars and bring our soldiers home. Instead, he has increased the intensity of the 2 ongoing wars and started another. If he were anything like the image he portrayed during the campaign, he would return that bogus Nobel Peace prize. He deserves that like he deserves another term...--jef)

++++++

Saturday, March 19, 2011 by Associated Press
by Robert Burns

The U.S. military attacked Moammar Gadhafi’s air defenses Saturday with strikes along the Libyan coast that were launched by Navy vessels in the Mediterranean.

A senior military official said the assault would unfold in stages and target air defense installations around Tripoli, the capital, and a coastal area south of Benghazi. That’s the rebel stronghold under attack by Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

Complete details were not immediately available, though the Pentagon said 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from U.S. and British warships off the Libyan coast.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive military operations.

Hours after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton attended an international conference in Paris that endorsed military action against Gadhafi, the U.S. kicked off its attacks on Libyan air defense missile and radar sites along the Mediterranean coast to protect no-fly zone pilots from the threat of getting shot down.

President Barack Obama authorized limited military action against Libya Saturday, saying Moammar Gadhafi’s continued assault on his own people left the U.S. and its international partners with no other choice. The Pentagon said it fired 110 cruise missiles at 20 targets.

Obama said military action was not his first choice.

“This is not an outcome US or any of our partners sought,” Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. “We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy.”

A senior military official said the U.S. launched air defenses Saturday with strikes along the Libyan coast that were launched by Navy vessels in the Mediterranean. The official said the assault would unfold in stages and target air defense installations around Tripoli, the capital, and a coastal area south of Benghazi, the rebel stronghold.

Obama declared once again that the United States would not send ground forces to Libya, though he said he is “deeply aware” of the risks of taking any military action.

At a news conference in Paris, Clinton said Gadhafi had left the world no choice but to intervene urgently and forcefully to protect further loss of civilian life.

“We have every reason to fear that left unchecked Gadhafi would commit unspeakable atrocities,” she told reporters.

Among the U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean were two guided-missile destroyers, the USS Barry and USS Stout, as well as two amphibious warships, the USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, and a command-and-control ship, the USS Mount Whitney. The submarine USS Providence was also in the Mediterranean.

Imperialist US?

By Robin Hanson · June 15, 2010 2:45 pm ·

Recent US war history in a nutshell: Responding to an ‘01 terror attack on NYC by activists from Saudi Arabia, funded by Pakistan, and trained in Afghanistan, the US in ‘03 attacked Iraq, supposedly because they had “weapons of mass destruction,” never found. US denied it wanted control of the strategic resource-rich Persian Gulf, saying it remains there to “nation-build.”  In ‘07 US geologists reported Afghanistan has $1 trillion in mineral wealth, and then in ‘09 the US more than doubled its Afghanistan troops, supposedly to fight terrorists and “nation-build.”  It now denies it wanted the minerals:

Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters Monday that the $1 trillion figure didn’t surface until recently because a military task force working on the issue had been focused on Iraq. … It wasn’t until late last year that the task force got around to looking at a 2007 study by the U.S. Geological Survey. That’s when the group estimated the minerals’ value, Lapan said. The New York Times first reported the $1 trillion figure on Sunday night.

Many are suspicious of US motives in both Iraq and Afghanistan. An ‘04 worldsurvey:

Majorities in all four Muslim nations surveyed doubt the sincerity of the war on terrorism. Instead, most say it is an effort to control Mideast oil and to dominate the world. … There is broad agreement in nearly all of the countries surveyed – the U.S. being a notable exception – that the war in Iraq hurt, rather than helped, the war on terrorism. … Solid majorities in France and Germany believe the U.S. is conducting the war on terrorism in order to control Mideast oil and dominate the world. … Large majorities in almost every country surveyed think that American and British leaders lied when they claimed, prior to the Iraq war, that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction.

Today in Afghanistan:

The Pentagon’s announcement that Afghanistan possesses $1 trillion worth of unexploited minerals will have the unintended consequence of confirming one of the most deeply entrenched conspiracy theories among Afghans.  Many Afghans I have spoken with believe firmly that America wants to permanently occupy the country in order to take Afghan land and resources. Even educated Afghans friends who generally support a temporary US presence have told me the same. I had to laugh when one suggested that Americans would want to move to Afghanistan to snatch up Afghan land for homes. … For many Afghans, it makes no sense that the US cannot wrap up the Taliban – so an imperialist land grab becomes a plausible explanation.

Historians agree that once upon a time colonial powers, including the US, did invade nations to try to gain their natural resources. (Not clear they benefited overall though.)  The world is now asked to believe that the US has lost this inclination and ability – gosh, the US folks who chose to attack Afghanistan didn’t even know it was a gold mine, honest.  Nor did Iraq’s oil influence invading it.  So why didn’t the US invade lots of other nations similarly plagued by terrorists, or nations like Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan that threaten nuclear instability?  It’s just random, the world is asked to believe.

I can see why the world is skeptical here. Now I can also understand the position that the US is no longer organized or capable enough to purposely target and gain advantage from invading resource-rich nations.  What I can’t understand is how folks who believe this can simultaneously believe the US is organized and capable enough to “build nations,” a task where we’ve seen little success lately, and a task made even harder by widespread suspicion of US motives. Really, that’s your story?!

McCain: U.S. Should "Pull the Trigger" on Iran

Arizona Senator Says U.S. Has Been Backing Away from Iran Conflict; Warns Tehran Will Get Nukes without Bolder Action

(CBS/ AP) Senator John McCain said the United States has been backing away from a brewing fight with Iran, while that country moves ever closer to having nuclear weapons.

McCain opened a Senate hearing Wednesday by saying that Iran will get the bomb unless the United States acts more boldly.

Speaking figuratively, the Arizona Republican says the U.S. keeps pointing a loaded gun at Iran but failing to "pull the trigger."

Military and intelligence officials testifying before Congress said Iran's accelerated nuclear program could produce one weapon in roughly a year, if the country decided to go that route.

But Gen. James Cartwright predicts it would still take longer than that to make the bomb usable.

Cartwright said that, historically, it takes a country three to five years to make such a leap. Cartwright is the second highest-ranking U.S. military officer.

The timeline he cited Wednesday could be shortened if Iran pursued ways to deliver a weapon at the same time as it worked to build a bomb.

The U.S. government has prepared a new, classified, assessment of Iranian nuclear ability and intent but has not released it yet.

The State Department's No. 3 official said the United States is working as fast as it can to win new international sanctions on Iran.

William Burns predicted that a resolution will emerge from the United Nations Security Council within weeks. And Burns called the case for new penalties urgent, saying he expects China will agree to some form of sanctions.

The U.S. appeared to have gained support from China, a traditional stumbling block on the United Nations Security Council regarding Iran, during a U.S.-hosted summit on nuclear proliferation this week.

Iran has denied it is seeking a nuclear weapon and maintains its ambitions are strictly energy-related. Tehran has also scoffed at U.S. threats to increase pressure. As the Obama administration welcomed nations to the nuclear summit Monday, Iran was busy celebrating "National Nuclear Day," reported CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer from Tehran.

Despite the rhetoric brushing aside the prospect of sanctions, the head of the country's nuclear program, Ali Akbar Salehi, made a candid admission in a rare interview with CBS News.

"Of course sanctions will affect us," said Salehi, who earned his Ph.D. at MIT in Boston."But it only will delay our projects. It will not stop our projects."

"They will hurt," he added. "Then we will have to come up with our own manufacturing systems."