WW III # Marching Towards 'Pre-emptive' Nuclear War? # (Ongoing videos/articles)

30,000 Drones To Fill American Skies By The End Of The Decade
February 9, 2012
Business Insider

Congress passed a bill this week paving the way for unmanned drones to ply American skies.

The bill requires the FAA to rush a plan to get as many drones in the air as possible within nine months.

How many drones are we talking?

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Threatening Russia: NATO Fighter Jets Can Patrol "Anything They Want"
by Vadim Trukhachev
February 10, 2012

As a matter of fact, the fighter jets of NATO's leading countries will be flying along the borders between Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia for good. It is worthy of note that the situation in the north - near the border with Norway and in the area of the Black Sea, from Turkey's side, is the same. It just so happens that NATO's aircraft can patrol Russian borders whenever they want. If Russia does the same, then everyone else thinks that it's inadmissible.

"The Japanese do not have any reason to be alarmed. The Americans fly across the North Pole, they fly near the territorial waters of the Russian Federation all the time, but no one says anything against that. Japan is a US ally - there are American army bases in Japan. There are aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean too. The appearance of the Russian fighter jets is an unpleasant event, of course. The Russian aviation can thus have an opportunity to watch the aircraft carriers."

During the negotiations about the unification of Germany, US, British, French and German officials gave the Soviet Union guarantees that NATO airplanes would not be patrolling the airspace to the east from Germany's eastern borders. NATO was not supposed to expand eastward either. All NATO top officials claim that there were no such guarantees made, but they are lying. The guarantees were documented.

Five airplanes of Russia's Air Force caused quite a commotion in the Land of the Rising Sun. The planes were flying near Japan's airspace, although they did not violate any international laws. In the meantime, NATO jets will be patrolling the airspace of the Baltic States on a permanent basis, flying along Russia's border. Russia did not set forth any claims about it.


CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

NATO's "Secret War" on Syria: Replicating the Libya Model
British Special Forces Supporting Rebels
by Stephen Lendman
February 11, 2012

In January, Michel Chossudovsky reported British media confirming UK/CIA/MI6 operatives in Syria training anti-Assad Western-backed insurgents. They're also supplying them with arms, ammunition, and equipment.

"These reports confirm unequivocally [they're illegally] interfer[ing] in the affairs of a sovereign state. This is not a popular uprising. The insurrection as well as the killings of civilians were sponsored by the Western powers from the outset."

More on this below. Events replicate the Libya model a year earlier.

In February 2011, US/UK/French special forces and intelligence operatives actively began helping anti-Gaddafi NATO-backed militants. An armed insurgency followed, including bombing weeks later.

A year later, BBC confirmed it, saying: "....British special forces were deployed on the ground in order to help the UK'S allies - the Libyan 'revolutionaries' often called the National Transitional Council or NTC."

Knowledgeable sources said "they did a tremendous job" conquering Libya. "The existence of E Squadron is well known within the special forces community but has not hitherto been discussed publicly. It was formed five years ago to work closely with the intelligence service MI6, and is mainly involved in missions where maximum discretion is required, say Whitehall insiders."

Composed of SAS, SBS, and Special Reconnaissance Regiment forces, it "often operates in plain clothes and with the full range of national support, such as false identities, at its disposal."

Last March, other British media provided similar accounts. The London Daily Mail, said "hundreds of British special forces troops have been deployed deep inside Libya targeting Colonel Gaddafi's forces - and more are on standby."

"It is understood that just under 250 UK special forces soldiers have been in Libya since before the launch of air strikes to enforce the no-fly zone against Gaddafi's forces."

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Iran Escalation: All the Elements for War Are Coming Together
by Tom Burghardt
February 12, 2012
Antifascist Calling...

With all the bluster of late in Western media that President Obama is assiduously working to "restrain" Israel from launching a preemptive attack on Iran, recent developments should put paid the lies of this dog-and-pony show.

Last Sunday during an interview with NBC News, the president made it clear that "all options" regarding plans for a joint U.S.-Israeli attack "are on the table." Far from distancing his government from the strident rhetoric emanating from Tel Aviv, Obama added that the administration is working "in lockstep" with Israel to "prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."

Never mind that unlike Israel, which is estimated to possess upwards of 200 nuclear weapons, as a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Iran is perfectly within its rights under international law to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

Indeed in December 2003, the Islamic Republic signed an additional protocol authorizing IAEA inspectors to make intrusive, snap inspections of their nuclear facilities and have expressed a willingness to negotiate an end to the Western-manufactured "standoff."

In our Orwellian Empire however, "diplomacy" is a convenient cover - and political talking point - for war and regime change. "Again," Obama told NBC News, "our goal is to resolve this diplomatically. That would be preferable. We're not going to take options off the table, though."

The president followed-up his threats on Monday when he signed an executive order freezing "all Iranian government and financial institutions' assets that are under U.S. jurisdiction," Bloomberg News reported.

According to the White House, Obama took the additional step towards cratering Iran's economy and cited "'deceptive practices' of the Iranian central bank in hiding transactions of sanctioned parties and its failure to prevent money laundering, concluding that Iran activities pose an 'unacceptable risk' to the international financial system."

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Special Ops Now Defines The Pentagon's Expanding Wars
by Danny Schechter
February 14, 2012

New York, New York: William H McRaven is an admiral in Obama’s Navy. He was a member of Seal Team 3, and oversaw the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

He’s the consummate Special Ops warrior and wants more special ops forces, more drones and, most significantly, more “autonomy” (read, power) to position “his” troops in more places. He is now lobbying to expand his “freedom” by building a bigger personal arsenal of undercover operatives under his command.

The NY Times refers to his guys somewhat vaguely as “elite units” that “have traditionally operated in “the dark corners of American foreign policy.”

That shines light on it, doesn’t it? What it says is: forget transparency and accountability. The hidden government is always hiding

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

String of Global Bombings Blamed on Iran - Bangkok joins the list of cities playing host to "Iranian" bombings.
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Activist Post

Not even 24 hours have passed and "Thai officials" have already determined not only that Bangkok's bomb blasts were the work of Iranians, but that they intended to target Israelis, this according to the Jerusalem Post. Anyone familiar with Thailand's police and government would realize the utter impossibility of such a crime being solved in a single afternoon - let alone being able to draw conclusions carrying possibly war-triggering implications.

February 14, 2012 - Already, the corporate-media and certified warmongers alike are pinning the recent bombings in Bangkok, Thailand on "bungling" Iranian terrorists.

CONTINUE: [link to www.activistpost.com]

New Weasel Word on Iran Nukes
by Robert Parry
February 16, 2012
Consortiumnews.com - 2012-02-15

Consortiumnews Exclusive: The U.S. news media has consistently created the impression that Iran is building a nuclear bomb and that its denials shouldn’t be taken seriously. However, U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessments may finally be eroding that smug certainty, Robert Parry reports.

What can one say when the Washington Post’s neoconservative editorial writers more correctly describe the U.S. and Israeli assessments on Iran’s nuclear program than does a news story in the New York Times? In a Wednesday morning surprise, a Washington Post editorial got the nuances, more or less, right in stating: “U.S. and Israeli officials share an assessment that, though Iran is building up nuclear capability, it has not taken decisive steps toward building a bomb.”

You could still say the Post is hyping things a bit, skewing the wording in an anti-Iranian direction, but the sentence is essentially correct on where U.S. and Israeli intelligence judgments stand, that Iran has NOT made a decision to build a nuclear bomb.

But then there’s the New York Times. It continues to mislead its readers, albeit with a new weasel word inserted to avoid being accused of completely misstating the facts. In a news article on Wednesday, the Times reported that “the United States, Europe and Israel have all called [Iran’s nuclear] program a cover for Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons capability, an accusation that Iran denies.”

The key weasel word now is “capability,” which is a very elastic concept since any work on nuclear research for peaceful purposes, such as low-level enrichment of uranium, could theoretically be used toward a weapons “capability.” (The word also appeared in the Post editorial.)

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Last Edited by RoXY on 02/16/2012 05:54 PM

Who Carried Out the Terrorist Car Bombings in India, Thailand and Georgia? Iran - Or Someone Else? - U.S. and Israel Point Towards Iran, But Did They Do It?
by Washington's Blog
February 16, 2012
Washington's Blog - 2012-02-15

Car bomb attacks which occurred this week in India, Georgia and Thailand are being blamed on Iran by the U.S., Israel and their allies.

If Iran, in fact, carried out the attacks, it will provide a justification for war against Iran.

But did Iran actually carry out the attacks?

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

VIDEO: Pat Buchanan - Middle-East Tensions: 300 Nukes in Israel yet "Iran is the threat"
February 22, 2012
Washington's Blog

America’s Approach to Syria and Iran Is Crazy

We’ve repeatedly noted that the U.S. is oddly fighting on the same side s Al Qaeda in Syria.

We’ve also pointed out that top American and Israeli experts say that Iran has not decided to build a nuclear bomb, and that – even if Iran ever does decide to build one – it would pose no real threat to the U.S. or Israel.

Pat Buchanan echoes both facts, saying about Syria, “If its good for Al Qaeda, can it be good for us?”, and noting that Israel has 300 nukes, so Iran possessing a couple of nuclear bombs would pose no threat.

Like Buchanan or hate him … he’s right here.

CONTINUE/VIDEO: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Last Edited by RoXY on 02/22/2012 10:08 PM

The Secret Government (CIA Overthrow of Mossadeq)
This features the CIA overthrow of the popular and democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953...

Memo To POTUS - Eyes Only: From The Department of Pre-War Planning And Threat Exaggeration
by Danny Schechter
February 26, 2012

Here are excerpts from a “secret document” whose authenticity cannot be authenticated, perhaps because I wrote it myself.

As you requested, here is the scenario for how we can launch a war on Iran while publicly denying we are doing so.

This is a digest of the multi-dimensional and multi-track strategy that is in place, and is being pursued simultaneously in a coordinated manner, by The Executive Branch, Defense Department, State Department, and all intelligence agencies. (And despite reports from our spy agencies that Iran is right to insist it is not making nuclear bombs. Why let a denial get in the way of useful paranoia?)

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Pentagon Demands $100 Million More For War With Iran
February 27, 2012
RT - 2012-02-25

Pentagon wants $100 million extra to be prepared for a war with Iran. The money, requested from the Congress, is to beef up US military presence in the Persian Gulf and rapidly upgrade weapons to more effectively combat Iranian armed forces.

US Central Command, which oversees American forces in the Gulf region, wants them prepared to defeat the Iranian fleet and shore artillery. They also want additional drone capabilities and mine swiping equipment to clear the Strait of Hormuz, should Iran act to set mines there as it threatened to, reports The Wall Street Journal.

As part of the push, US spec-op team stationed in the United Arab Emirates has also been ordered to be prepared to take parting in military action in the region, the newspapers says citing defense sources. The unit is currently training elite forces of the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait and other US allies in the region.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Openly Lying Us Into War With Iran - Lying the World Into War Is Always an Option
by Jon Schwarz
February 29, 2012
A Tiny Revolution - 2012-02-28

This is from p. 84-5 in Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran, a June, 2009 book edited and co-authored by Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution:

...absent a clear Iranian act of aggression, American airstrikes against Iran would be unpopular in the region and throughout the world... it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) ... [T]he use of airstrikes could not be the primary U.S. policy toward Iran... until Iran provided the necessary pretext.

You may remember Pollack from The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, the 2002 book cited by all the nice liberals who sadly and reluctantly supported war. What you don't remember—because none of the nice liberals mentioned it — is that on p. 364-5 of The Threatening Storm Pollack presented exactly the same option regarding Iraq:

Assembling a […] coalition would be infinitely easier if the United States could point to a smoking gun with Iraqi fingerprints on it — some new Iraqi outrage that would serve to galvanize international opinion and create the pretext for an invasion...

There are probably […] courses the United States could take that might prompt Saddam to make a foolish, aggressive move, that would then become the "smoking gun" justifying an invasion. An aggressive U.S. covert action campaign might provoke Saddam to retaliate overtly, providing a casus belli...

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Brzezinksi: USA will not support Israel if they attack Iran
(Sure... and I won't come in your mouth and pay you back tomorrow...)

OP it is and has been quite evident to me that we have been planning WW3 in the Middle East for a while. We have given Syria an Iran both rogue Nation status for a long time now. It would appear to me that we have been using them as "aces in the hole" to be played when the time was right.

I believe we have been antagonizing Russia for a while now with their exclusion from the MDS treaty and the Poland issue with our missiles in Poland pointed at Russia.

My question is why are we starting all the trouble at this time in Libya, the Middle East, etc. It is almost like we are trying to fulfill the prophecy of Revelation intentionally. Is Russia and Putin an honest broker in all of this or are they merely playing a role in this sinister play?

I find the entire series of events quite disquieting and feel that the other shoe is getting ready to drop. What are your thoughts?

Russia - & China too - have made very clear that they will not except a US/NATO attack on Iran.

They have been very cooperative in the case of Lybia - supported the UN resolutions - & were dubblecrossed by NATO in return.

That's unexceptable for Russia.

Hardly anybody in the world with more than one braincell believes the Western 'We are the good guys' retoric any longer.

In the US it's the military-industrial complex that's pushing a new war. One of their most important arguments is of course that a 'war-economy' is profitable.

US to Attempt Overthrow of Putin Government - Wall Street & London elite lay groundwork to justify large scale destabilization in Russia.
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Activist Post

As predicted - the Western media and US State Department-funded "opposition" inside Russia have called Vladimir Putin's landslide victory a "fraud." It was stated on Thursday March 1 that the Western media had "already determined how Russia's elections will unfold, creating the pretext in the minds of impressionable viewers to justify the unrest the US is undoubtedly planning."

CONTINUE: [link to www.activistpost.com]

Interview: Time for Russia and the World to Draw a Line With U.S. and NATO
by Rick Rozoff and John Robles
March 5, 2012

Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to www.globalresearch.ca

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has written is a white paper regarding Russian security and the upgrading of Russian military forces in response to NATO’s expansion. Can you give us some insights into this?

I’m probably not that familiar with all the particulars as you are, but I think I understand the gist of it, which is that in the face of increased military hardware of the United States and its NATO allies being brought closer to Russia’s border, and we’re talking particularly about the so-called missile shield that is placing interceptor missiles capable of knocking out other nations’ missiles and radars to accompany those missile deployments, Russia will need to be able to protect its strategic military potential against efforts to neutralize it.

Earlier this month Prime Minister Putin made a comment, and a pretty straight-forward one, that neither Iran nor North Korea poses any missile problem so that the development of what he which quite accurately, by the way, described as a global missile shield with a European component. And that reflects what Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had said earlier this year – he used the same expression, because in fact that’s what it is – it’s an effort to be able to have sea- and land-based interceptor missiles placed strategically so as to achieve global dominance. Putin also alluded without naming it as such, to what we understand to be Prompt Global Strike or the Conventional Prompt Global Strike concept.

When he said that certain countries, and he meant the United States in the first instance without having to naming it, are developing the capability to deliver high-precision, long-range missiles with conventional loads – and that’s Prompt Global Strike. To achieve, as the prime minister put it, the same effect as strategic as strategic weapons would, in other words to have the same ability to upset the international balance of military forces in the world but also to be able to ultimately destroy the military potential of other countries short of using nuclear weapons. That’s Prompt Global Strike.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Is Israel Driving the Threat of War?
by Larry Everest
March 6, 2012

There is a lot of speculation in the U.S. press and among opponents of attacking Iran, that Israel is pushing for an attack on Iran and driving the war danger, while the Obama administration is seeking to restrain Israel and avoid war. And a lot of people feel that this is another instance of the "Israel lobby" having decisive influence in U.S. politics. (A number of anti-war groups will be protesting at the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Convention in Washington March 4 - 6.

These perceptions have been fueled by a torrent of news reports. For instance, a February 8 New York Times analysis, "U.S. and Israel Split on Speed of Iran Threat," a February 28 AP report that Israel has told the U.S. it would not inform them before striking Iran, and February 26 public statements by both General Martin Dempsey, chair of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and British Foreign Secretary William Hague urging Israel not to attack Iran.

Israel looms large because it plays a crucial role for the U.S. in preserving its control of the Middle East. Israel functions—not as the homeland of Jewish people—but as America's "unsinkable aircraft carrier," as a U.S. official once put it, and the most solidly reliable ally and military outpost in the region. Particularly in this period of upheaval and transition, Iran's rising power and the other changes in the region do have the potential to undermine Israel's position as a Western settler-colonial outpost in the heart of the Middle East.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

WAR: Marching Toward Syria: Eyes Cast on Iran
by Ben Schreiner
March 7, 2012

While all the incessant warmongering directed toward Iran at the annual AIPAC policy conference in Washington was grabbing the headlines, the momentum for Western intervention into Syria continued to steadily build. All those neo-con "real men," it appears, just might prefer to go to Tehran via Damascus.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

"The Mother of All Bombs": a “great weapon” to use on Iran, says US air force chief
by Global Research News
March 10, 2012

A top US Air Force general has described the biggest conventional warhead – the 30,000-pound bunker buster bomb – as “great” for a military strike on Iran.

Such glib comment about a massive killing device comes in the same week that US President Barack Obama appeared to caution against “loose talk” about war in the Persian Gulf.

“The massive ordnance penetrator [MOP] is a great weapon,” said Lieutenant General Herbert Carlisle, the US Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, who added that the bomb would likely be used in any attack on Iran ordered by Washington.

The MOP also referred to as "The Mother of All Bombs" is designed to drill through 200 feet of reinforced concrete before detonating its massive warhead. It is believed to be the biggest conventional, non-nuclear, weapon in the American arsenal. In terms of destructive capability, it can be said to be the most fearsome explosive weapon among a range of massive-blast ordnance developed by the Pentagon over the past decade.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Obama Plans More Middle East Wars
by Stephen Lendman
March 10, 2012

Cheerled by America's major media scoundrels, war looks increasingly likely. Syria and Iran both are targeted.

Imagine the potential catastrophic consequences, especially if nuclear weapons are used. They were before. Why not now. The prospect's chilling.

In his Der Ring des Nibelungen operas (the Ring), Richard Wagner portrayed his apocalyptic version musically. Gotterdammerung (Twilight of the Gods) prophesied the end of the world.

Einstein suggested it, saying he didn't know what WW III weapons would be used, "but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Around the same time, Bertrand Russell warned: "Shall we put an end to the human race, or shall mankind renounce war" and live in peace. The stark choice is clear. The wrong one suggests consequences too grim to imagine.

It's terrifying to imagine nuclear bunker-buster bombs used against underground targets. Whatever the physical damage, irradiating vast areas could kill millions, and set a precedent to keep using them like king-sized hand grenades.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

Effects of a regional nuclear war on global temperatures
By Eric Berger
March 10 2012

Despite a flurry of diplomatic efforts tensions between Israel and Iran appear to be reaching a boiling point regarding the latter country’s designs on joining the nuclear club.

This is not a geopolitical blog, but rather a science one. So I want to address the question of nuclear war’s effect on climate.

Rutgers University environmental research Alan Robock has studied this question in a meaningful way, using NASA’s climate ModelE to study the climatic effects of the byproducts of a nuclear war. Let me be clear, its effect on climate change is down the list of problems posed by nuclear weapons, but the long-term effects would nonetheless be profound, most specifically through colder temperatures, shorter growing seasons and famine.

First lets look at the consequences of a regional nuclear war using 100 15-kT (Hiroshima-size) weapons.

CONTINUE: [link to blog.chron.com]

Impasse in Israel-US Relations
by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
March 11, 2012

An insincere and evil friend is more to be feared than a wild beast; a wild beast may wound your body, but an evil friend will wound your mind.
- Buddha

America ’s relations with Israel has always been explained by politicians on both sides as ‘friendship’. Today, more than any other time in the course of their ‘friendship’, this relationship brings to mind the story of “Blockhead and the Judge”.

According to English folklore, Blockhead complained to the Judge of being annoyed with flies. The Judge granted Blockhead permission to strike them wherever he saw them. Observing a big fly on the judge's nose, Blockhead delivered a powerful blow with his fist, smashing the fly – and the Judge’s nose.

Israel, annoyed at Iran’s refusal to abrogate its rights granted under international law and treaties, and for resisting injustice, has demanded that the United States not only impose crippling sanctions on Iran, but place an embargo on Iran’s crude oil. America ’s compliance with such irrational and harsh demands has in turn raised the prospect of retaliation which could halt the flow of oil from the Strait of Hormuz , depriving the world of an estimated 35% of its total oil needs.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]

CONFRONTATION WITH AMERICA: China’s military spending surpasses $100 billion
by John Chan
March 19, 2012

This year’s Chinese military budget, approved by the National People’s Congress, is 670 billion yuan ($US106.4 billion), an 11.2 percent increase from 2011 and a doubling from 2006.

As a result, China is only the second country, after the US, to have a defence budget of over $100 billion, well ahead of third-placed France, which spent $61.2 billion in 2011. According to IHS Jane’s, in four years China’s military spending could exceed the rest of Asia combined, “leaving Japan and India far behind”.

The Western media, especially in the US, seized on the figure as further evidence of the military threat posed by China. The New York Times, for instance, wrote: “The new [Chinese] hardware is being displayed at a time when there is a growing gap between China’s rising military expenditures and slowing spending by other countries in the region, many of them American allies. That gap has reinforced the realisation that the United States may not remain the singularly dominant power in the Asia-Pacific region if Chinese military spending keeps escalating.”

Beijing is expanding its military to defend the economic and strategic interests of Chinese capitalism. But the main driving force for this arms race is the aggressive stance taken by the US, particularly under the Obama administration, toward China. Washington’s strengthening of alliances and partnerships throughout the Asia region, and its military build-up in South East Asia, threaten to encircle China.

US military spending is projected to be $707.5 billion in 2012 (base budget plus war costs such as in Afghanistan)—nearly seven times that of China. The US defence budget is greater than for the next 10 largest military powers combined. Huge US military spending ensures its vast superiority to China in almost every military field, ranging from its possession of the world’s largest strategic nuclear forces, to its 750 military bases around the world.

CONTINUE: [link to globalresearch.ca]