U.S In Iraq For A Minimum, Next 20-35 Years!

President George W. Bush signed a $696 billion Pentagon spending bill immediately before his State of the Union address Monday night, which funds all Defense Department programs not directly tied to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, expands health care for injured veterans, and gives U.S. soldiers a pay raise.

The bill is a mixed bag for peace activists, since Bush added a so-called "signing statement" saying he would ignore provisions that ban permanent military bases in Iraq and forbid the use of U.S. troops to exercise United States control of Iraq's oil resources.

Congress tucked many contentious policies into the spending bill, knowing President Bush would have to sign it to keep the military from grinding to a halt. Among them is a Wounded Warrior bill designed to improve the quality of medical care for U.S. veterans.

Washington's answer to the scandal surrounding poor care at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, it was championed by politicians and presidential hopefuls across the political spectrum from Democrat Barack Obama to Republican John McCain.

"This is a tremendous victory for veterans, so that we do not leave any more behind to fall through the cracks," said Paul Sullivan, director of the group Veterans for Common Sense.

The Pentagon reports more than 68,000 U.S. soldiers have been wounded, injured, or stricken ill in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals and clinics have treated over 260,000 patients from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

On top of that, the VA has reported nearly 250,000 disability claims from veterans of the two wars. Studies show as many as half of the 1.6 million soldiers sent to fight in Iraq will return with post-traumatic stress disorder and a fifth are returning with traumatic brain injury, physical brain damage often caused by roadside bombs.

Sullivan says the most important aspect of the legislation President Bush signed Monday is a provision guaranteeing every veteran free VA health care for five years after returning from Iraq or Afghanistan.

"Right now, veterans only receive two years of free health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and due to the long delays at the VA, those two years often expire before the veteran can receive treatment from a doctor," he told IPS.

"In some cases, when a veteran has traumatic brain injury or a psychological condition related to the war, it may be six months or two or even three years until the condition gets serious enough for the veteran to even want to go to the VA for health care. Now, with this five years of free health care from the VA, our Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans can rest a little more assured that when they show up at the VA they will be treated right away with high quality VA doctors," he said.

President Bush didn't approve the entire bill, though – he used a signing statement to say he wouldn't follow four provisions of the act, which he said "could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations." Those provisions would have mandated increased congressional oversight of military contractors, banned construction of permanent military bases in Iraq and forbade the use of U.S. troops to exercise United States control of Iraq's oil resources.

Antonia Juhasz of the group Oil Change International told IPS the issues of oil and permanent military bases are related.

"We've got the Bush administration pushing aggressively for an [Iraqi] law that would give oil companies 20- to 25-year contracts for oil in Iraq and if they were to be at work for an extended length of time, they would need security," she said.

"If the U.S. military is going to stay in Iraq for 20 or 35 years, they're going to need bases," she added.

Juhasz said President Bush's signing statements show the futility of the Democrats' main approach to the war issue – which is to continue approving funds for the war while simultaneously trying to extract concessions from the administration. A Congressional Budget Office report released last week showed the Democratic Congress appropriated more money for the Iraq war in 2007 than Republican Congresses did in years past.

"The bottom line has to be in the willingness to give the money," she said. "The budget for the war this year has reached $170 billion for just the next year. That is an astounding amount of money. The increase in spending on the war is largely caused by the surge, and of course the power of the purse is the only power that the Democrats have."

Some observers are looking forward to January 2009, when George Bush's eight years in office will come to an end. But James Paul of the Global Policy Forum says there's plenty the Democrats can do this year to slow or stop the conflict.

"If this is something that counts, then surely they have a pretty strong mandate," he said.

"I suspect there are problems that will go beyond January 2009 and this issue is not going to go away any time soon – even if George Bush is out of office," he added.

SOURCE

RUSSIA THREATENS NUKE STRIKE!!

Top-ranking Russian military figure Says America had better watch out

Recent statements coming from one of Russia's highest-ranking military commanders indicate that America and Israel plan to go ahead with war on Iran despite the release of the National Intelligence Estimate late last year.

Russia's military chief of staff General Yuri Baluyevsky threatened the use of nuclear weapons in case of a major threat. He said that, although they have no plans of attacking anyone, they nevertheless "consider it necessary for everyone around the world community to clearly understand, that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including, preventively, the use of nuclear weapons."

His statements (which can only have been made in concert with the overall policies established by his boss President Vladimir Putin) come a week after George Bush's visit to the Persian Gulf, in which he attempted to rally the nations in that region around U.S. and Israeli plans of "confronting Iran's nuclear program before it is too late."

Baluyevsky's statement, despite the stark and apocalyptic themes pervading it, comes as no surprise. Over the course of the past year, Russia has taken on an increasingly aggressive defensive posture with regard to the West as a result of what it sees as an overall plan of encircling her with NATO forces that threaten her existence.

Russia has resumed long-range bomber patrols (halted with the fall of the Soviet Union), sometimes coming within inches of NATO airspace. She has pulled out of several treaties with the West limiting the size of Russian military forces on Europe's eastern flank. Incensed at the U.S. plan of using new NATO member nations in Eastern Europe as a staging area for missile defense systems (said to be a necessary defense against Iran), Russia has developed and successfully test fired new missiles—both land- and sea-launched. Russia claims they are sophisticated enough to trump any U.S. missile shield.

Beginning in December (after the release of the NIE), Russia began delivering the nuclear fuel supplies promised to Iran according to their agreement. As of this moment, four shipments have been made totaling 45 tons of the estimated 80 tons necessary for the Bushehr facility to begin refinement.

Israel is furious, as evidenced by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov where she called the fuel deliveries "inconceivable."

What is of particular importance in General Baluyevsky's statement is his mention of "defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity" of, not just Russia, but her "allies" as well. Russia has not, as of this moment, signed formal mutual defense agreements with nations such as Iran and Syria.

Both are on Israel and America's list of countries targeted for destruction. Both are important trading partners occupying Russia's peripheries and therefore a first-line defense of Russian territory.

Throughout this nightmare in the Middle East, Russia has demonstrated a sane and rational character. By contrast, Israel and the United States under the administration of George Bush, have been irrational and unpredictable. Iraq and Afghanistan are unmitigated disasters and the fact that neither the U.S. nor Israel has learned from these disasters proves they are dangerous to all nations seen as uncooperative in the drive for U.S. and Israeli world hegemony.

Indeed, Putin recently compared Bush to a "maniac running around threatening everyone with a razor."

SOURCE

Iraq Conflict Has Killed A Million, Says Survey

LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.

The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes.

The last complete census in Iraq conducted in 1997 found 4.05 million households in the country, a figure ORB used to calculate that approximately 1.03 million people had died as a result of the war, the researchers found.

The margin of error in the survey, conducted in August and September 2007, was 1.7 percent, giving a range of deaths of 946,258 to 1.12 million.

ORB originally found that 1.2 million people had died, but decided to go back and conduct more research in rural areas to make the survey as comprehensive as possible and then came up with the revised figure.

The research covered 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Those that not covered included two of Iraq's more volatile regions -- Kerbala and Anbar -- and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work.

Estimates of deaths in Iraq have been highly controversial in the past.

Medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed report in 2004 stating that there had been 100,000 more deaths than would normally be expected since the March 2003 invasion, kicking off a storm of protest.

The widely watched Web site Iraq Body Count currently estimates that between 80,699 and 88,126 people have died in the conflict, although its methodology and figures have also been questioned by U.S. authorities and others.

ORB, a non-government-funded group founded in 1994, conducts research for the private, public and voluntary sectors.

The director of the group, Allan Hyde, said it had no objective other than to record as accurately as possible the number of deaths among the Iraqi population as a result of the invasion and ensuing conflict. (Reporting by Luke Baker; editing by Andrew Roche)

SOURCE

Censorship, Hypocrisy & The Advertising Standards Authority

Ryanairs quote says it all!......

Budget airline Ryanair has been told to withdraw an advert featuring a model in schoolgirl-style clothes and a headline "hottest back to school fares".

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the "irresponsible" image appeared to link teenage girls with sexually provocative behaviour.

The advert shows the model with a bare midriff in a short skirt, tie, shirt and knee-high socks in a classroom.

Ryanair refused to withdraw the image, but ASA dismissed this as "PR bluster".

The advert has been removed and it will not run again, an ASA spokesman told BBC News.

Media space owners will not accept the advert again, the spokesman said.

Ryanair, in turn, described the ASA ruling as "censorship".

'Widespread offence'

The advert, which was printed in three newspapers reaching 3.5 million readers - the Herald, Daily Mail and Scottish Daily Mail - prompted 13 complaints to the ASA from readers who found it offensive.

After an investigation, the watchdog ruled the advert breached the advertising code's rules on social responsibility and decency.

"We considered that her appearance and pose, in conjunction with the heading 'Hottest', appeared to link teenage girls with sexually provocative behaviour and was irresponsible and likely to cause serious or widespread offence," the watchdog said.

The ASA told Ryanair to withdraw the advert and ensure its future promotions complied with the advertising code.

However, the airline said the model's clothing reflected what was currently fashionable among young women and that the number of complaints was insignificant compared to the three newspapers' combined readership.

Ryanair also said its advert was considerably less suggestive than some others appearing in the media.

"It is remarkable that a picture of a fully-clothed model is now claimed to cause 'serious or widespread offence', when many of the UK's leading daily newspapers regularly run pictures of topless or partially-dressed females without causing any serious or widespread offence,"

said Peter Sherrard, head of communications for the airline.

"This isn't advertising regulation, it is simply censorship. This bunch of unelected self-appointed dimwits are clearly incapable of fairly and impartially ruling on advertising."

Mr Sherrard added that Ryanair believed the advert was not irresponsible nor offensive and would therefore "not be withdrawing this ad" and would "not provide the ASA with any of the undertakings they seek".

Ryanair's stance was dismissed by the ASA spokesman as "public posturing".

The Herald, which received a complaint from a reader, said they were not prepared to run it again.

The Daily Mail and Scottish Daily Mail had not received any complaints from readers but said they would not run the promotion again.

SOURCE

Surviving 2012 & Planet X - THIS AFFECTS YOU!!!

Thousands of years ago, the ancient Sumerians, Mayans, Egyptians, Hebrews, Celts and numerous other cultures set down prophetic warnings in their wisdom texts and folklore about 2012. Diverse in their origins, they all converge on the Mayan date of 2012, and their many warnings to us are very precise. They speak of a massive, reddish object that will fly through the core of our solar system in 2012 with catastrophic results.

This 5-part video series offers a straightforward view of this coming human event.

1: The Threat

Shows how the approach of Planet X is already changing our world.

2: Scientific Proof

Presents scientific proof for a catastrophic return of Planet X in 2012.

3: Historical Proof

Presents historical proof for past catastrophic flybys of Planet X and ancient predictions regarding 2012.

4: Surviving the Flyby

Examines the massive Planet X preparations our governments are making in anticipation of a 2012 Planet X flyby.

5: Beyond 2012

Offers a post-2014 vision of our world and how humanity will rebuild after the Planet X flyby.

Learn More About Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project

SOURCE

The Search For Planet X

The Search for Planet X

INTERVIEW AT NASA ABOUT PLANET X

Watch the Video

In the early 1990's, calculations by the United States Naval Observatory have confirmed the orbital perturbation exhibited by Uranus and Neptune, which Dr. Thomas C Van Flandern, an astronomer at the observatory, says could be explained by "a single undiscovered planet". He and a colleague, Dr. Robert Harrington, calculate that the 10th planet should be two to five times more massive than Earth and have a highly elliptical orbit that takes it some 5 billion miles beyond that of Pluto.

We know today that beyond the giant planets Jupiter and Saturn lie more major planets, Uranus and Neptune, and a small planet, Pluto. But such knowledge is quite recent. Uranus was discovered, through the use of improved telescopes, in 1781. Neptune was pinpointed by astronomers (guided by mathematical calculations) in 1846. It became evident that Neptune was being subjected to unknown gravitational pull, and in 1930 Pluto (was located). The latest advances in space imaging do not rely solely on orbital perturbations as the way for locating and identifying possible candidates for Planet X.

The 6,000 year old Sumerian descriptions of our solar system include one more planet they called "Nibiru", which means "Planet of the crossing". The descriptions of this planet by the Sumerians match precisely the specifications of "Planet X" (the Tenth Planet), which is currently being sought by astronomers in the depths of our own Solar System. Why has Planet X not been seen in recent times? Views from modern and ancient astronomy, which both suggest a highly elliptical, comet-like orbit, takes Planet X into the depths of space, well beyond the orbit of Pluto. We discovered Pluto with our telescopes just recently in 1930. Is it not possible that there are other forces at work on our solar system besides the nine planets we know of? YES!!!! The Sumerian descriptions of Our Solar System are being confirmed with modern advances in science. This article will show actual diagrams from the Sumerian times and how the accuracy for describing the planets is overwhelming!

SOURCE

Understanding The Palestinian - Israeli Conflict

If you wonder "Why is there violence in the Middle East?" or "Why is the current level of violence so intense?" - this primer is for you.

Using easy-to-understand and straight-forward language, Phyllis Bennis, at the Institute of Policy Studies and a long time analyst of the Middle East and U.S. policy in the region, answers these and many other frequently-asked-questions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This new updated edition includes an analysis of the "road map" to peace.

PART ONE: The Crisis
PART TWO: The Other Players
PART THREE: Recent History: The Beginning of the Crisis
PART FOUR: Looking Backwards (1990-1991)
PART FIVE: The Future
PART SIX: Additional Resources

This electronic version of the primer was made available to the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation with permission from the Trans-Arab Research Institute (TARI).

TARI provides scholarly studies oriented towards understanding the present social, cultural, economic and political issues confronting Middle Eastern societies. TARI provides a venue for interactive meetings between Middle Eastern and international participants and provides focused research and public venues to analyze, discuss and present alternative perspectives. TARI organizes conferences, seminars and workshops to exchange ideas and present scholarly papers, as well as produce publications to share research and seminar results with the general public and specialists on the area.

Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington and of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. She directs the New Internationalism Project, which focuses on U.S. policy in the Middle East, U.S.-UN relations, and U.S. unilateralism and interventions. Her books include Before & After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the September 11th Crisis, Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN, and Beyond the Storm: A Gulf Crisis Reader. She is co-chair of the steering committee of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and works closely with the United for Peace and Justice coalition in the U.S. and with numerous anti-war organizations in the global peace movement.

http://www.tari.org