Popular Posts
-
" One has to be in the wheelhouse to see what shifts are taking place. I know that we have spun the wheel ... -
Edward A. Burkhardt is President of Rail World, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois, a railroad management and consulting company he formed in ... -
One needs to look no further than in our universities as the principal culprit in producing the leadership and foot soldiers required to a... -
256 989 227 039,82 $ http://www.iedm.org/ The Québec "Debt Clock" shows the growth of the public debt sector in ... -
An immensely powerful Global Banking Cartel most people have never even heard of controls the vast majority of Central Banks around the... -
The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Y...
-
Created in 2009 Fascist states of North America by: C101 1) Invades sovereign nations based on deliberate lies 2) Uses robot...
Sunday, 4 August 2013
Pentagon has concluded that the time has come to prepare for war with China
The Pentagon has concluded that the time has come to prepare for war with China. It is a momentous conclusion, a momentous decision that so far has failed to receive a thorough review from elected officials, namely the White House and Congress. This important change in the United States’ posture toward China has largely been driven by the Pentagon.
The decision at hand stands out even more prominently because (a) the change in military posture may well lead to an arms race with China, which could culminate in a nuclear war; and (b) the economic condition of the United States requires a reduction in military spending, not a new arms race.
Have the White House and Congress properly reviewed the Pentagon’s approach—and found its threat assessment of China convincing? If not, what are the United States’ overarching short- and long-term political strategies for dealing with an economically and militarily rising China?
Since the Second World War the United States has maintained a power-projection military, built upon forward deployed forces with uninhibited access to the global commons—air, sea, and space. For over six decades the maritime security of the Western Pacific has been underwritten by the unrivaled naval and air power of the United States. Starting in the early 1990s, however, Chinese investments in sophisticated, but low-cost, weapons—including anti-ship missiles, short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, stealth submarines, and cyber and space arms—began to challenge the military superiority of the United States, especially in China’s littoral waters.
These “asymmetric arms” threaten two key elements of the United States’ force projection strategy: its fixed bases, such as those in Japan and Guam, and aircraft carriers.
These Chinese arms are viewed by some in the Pentagon as raising the human and economic cost of the United States’ military role in the region to prohibitive levels. To demonstrate what this new environment means for regional security, military officials point out that, in 1996, when China conducted a series of missile tests and military exercises in the Strait of Taiwan, the United States responded by sending two aircraft carriers to the South China Sea, a credible display of force that reminded all parties of its commitment to maintaining the status quo in the region.
However, these analysts point out, if in the near future China decided to forcefully integrate Taiwan, the same U.S. aircraft carriers that are said to have once deterred Chinese aggression could be denied access to the sea by PLA anti-ship missiles. Thus, the U.S.’s interests in the region, to the extent that they are undergirded by superior military force, are increasingly vulnerable.
Two influential American military strategists, Andrew Marshall and his protégé Andrew Krepinevich, have been raising the alarm about China’s new capabilities and aggressive designs since the early 1990s.
By China’s “aggressive designs”, he means China’s decision to defend itself against American aggression. The mere fact that American ships are patrolling the Chinese coast, and not Chinese ships patrolling the American coast, makes it quite clear who the real aggressor is.
Published on YouTube May 23, 2012 by C101
Building on hundreds of war games played out over the past two decades, they gained a renewed hearing for their concerns following Pacific Vision, a war game conducted by the U.S. Air Force in October 2008.
With Marshall’s guidance, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates instructed the Chiefs of Staff to begin work on the AirSea Battle (ASB) project and, in September of 2009 . . . a classified Memorandum of Agreement was signed allowing the US “to counter growing challenges to US freedom of action.”
Published on YouTube Jan 27, 2013 by C101
Published on YouTube Jan 27, 2013 by C101
In late 2011 Gates’ successor, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, also signed off on the ASB and formed the new Multi-Service Office to Advance AirSea Battle. Thus, ASB was conceived, born, and began to grow.
AirSea Battle calls for a campaign to reestablish power projection capabilities by launching a “blinding attack” against Chinese anti-access facilities, including land and sea-based missile launchers, surveillance and communication platforms, satellite and anti-satellite weapons, and command and control nodes.
US forces could then enter contested zones and conclude the conflict by bringing to bear the full force of their material military advantage.
One defense think tank report, AirSea Battle:
A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept”, suggests that China is likely to respond to what is effectively a major direct attack on its mainland with all the military means at its disposal—including its stockpile of nuclear arms.
A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept”, suggests that China is likely to respond to what is effectively a major direct attack on its mainland with all the military means at its disposal—including its stockpile of nuclear arms.
Although the Chinese nuclear force is much smaller than that of the United States, China nonetheless has the capacity to destroy American cities. According to leading Australian military strategist Hugh White, “We can be sure that China will place a very high priority indeed on maintaining its capacity to strike the United States, and that it will succeed in this.”
Joshua Rovner of the U.S. Naval War College notes that deep inland strikes could be mistakenly perceived by the Chinese as preemptive attempts to take out its nuclear weapons, thus cornering them into “a terrible use-it-or-lose-it dilemma.”
“Mistakenly perceived” is disingenuous. Why should the Chinese be “mistaken” in their belief that America would like to destroy their nuclear facilties? The Americans can hardly be perceived as benevolent aggressors.
Several defense analysts in the United States and abroad, not least in China, see AirSea Battle as being highly provocative. Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright stated in 2012 that, “AirSea Battle is demonizing China. That’s not in anybody’s interest.” An internal assessment of ASB by the Marine Corps commandant cautions that “an Air-Sea Battle-focused Navy and Air Force would be preposterously expensive to build in peace time” and if used in a war against China would cause “incalculable human and economic destruction.”
Published on YouTube Sep 27, 2013 by C101
As I see it, the implied strategy is clear: ASB planners aim to make the United States so clearly powerful that not only would China lose if it engaged militarily, but it would not consider engaging because the United States would be sure to win.
In the past, first strike nuclear strategies were foresworn and steps were taken to avoid a war precipitated by miscommunications, accidents, or miscalculations. In contrast, AirSea Battle requires that the United States be able to take the war to the mainland with the goal of defeating China, which quite likely would require striking first. Such a strategy is nothing short of a hegemonic intervention.
When Andrew Krepinevich suggested that ASB is simply seeking to maintain stability in the Asia-Pacific, he was asked if this “stability” really meant continued US hegemony in the area. He chuckled and responded, “Well, the nations in the area have a choice: either we are number one or China is.
by Amitai Etzioni
Don't shoot the messengers
C101
Saturday, 3 August 2013
Elections Canada turns a blind eye to Liberal lawbreakers
Non-partisan? Really? Elections Canada turns a blind eye to Liberal lawbreakers, but not Tories
Elections Canada describes itself as
“the independent, non-partisan agency responsible for conducting federal elections and referendums.”
Given their actions this week, the last thing this body should call itself is non-partisan. After spending the last few years dragging Conservative MPs, senators and even the party through investigations, prosecutions and court cases, Elections Canada chose not to prosecute four Liberals who seem to have broken Canada’s election laws.
Ken Dryden, Joe Volpe, Hedy Fry and Stephane Dion not only failed to pay off their debts from the 2006 leadership contest on time, they missed a court-granted extension that ended in 2011. At the end of December 2011, Ken Dryden still owed $225,000, Volpe owed $97,800, Fry $69,000 and Dion $7,500. For a total of $399,300 in outstanding debt.
Under Canada’s election financing laws, any loans still unpaid at the end of the 18-month grace period are to be considered donations. Since our law also limits donations to $1,200, anyone owing on a loan greater than that will have broken the law.
“It is clear that the leadership contestants who continue to have unpaid debts from the Liberal Party of Canada’s 2006 leadership contest are not in compliance with the Canada Elections Act,” said Marc Mayrand, Canada’s chief electoral officer.
So why isn’t Mayrand prosecuting then?
According to the man charged with ensuring fair elections and enforcing the law, “the Act, as currently drafted, does not provide a means by which these contestants can be sanctioned or compelled to repay their outstanding debts.”
If Mayrand actually thinks that, then he hasn’t read the act he is sworn to uphold.
Section 497 (1) of the Canada Elections Act says anyone who contravenes the contribution limit is guilty of an offence. Section 500 of the Act lays out the punishment for violating the Act: A fine of up to $1,000, three months in jail, or both.
But Mayrand says he can’t prosecute these four Liberals, two of them still sitting MPs. Is the problem that he can’t read or he doesn’t want to prosecute?
Having watched Mayrand closely before parliamentary committees, I can assure you the man knows how to read.
In a letter to Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, Mayrand said prosecution of these offences requires proof of “wilfulness.”
OK, if we take Mayrand at his word, then I assume they conducted an investigation to see if there was wilfulness. Did they check to see if the candidates took out huge loans, sometimes from themselves, without intending to pay the money back? Did Mayrand’s investigators look to see if the candidates actually tried to raise money to pay off the debts?
It doesn’t look like Elections Canada did any of this.
I asked the “non-partisan” watchdog three specific questions about their investigation:
• Did they conduct interviews with every lender and candidate?
• Did they demand the production of e-mail and phone records related to the loans?
• Were staff members of the lenders or candidates interviewed?
“While we will not comment on the specifics of the Commissioner’s review of this matter …” the e-mail reply began. Translation: Elections Canada didn’t do any of these things.
This is important because Elections Canada investigators have done all of those things when investigating Conservatives for possible election finance violations.
Dean Del Mastro, the Conservative MP from Peterborough, had his bank records seized before he even knew Elections Canada had any questions for him.
Why? They think he donated too much money to his own campaign.
Funny, that would be the same charge against someone like Ken Dryden, who loaned his own leadership campaign $300,000. But Dryden gets a pass because he is a Liberal.
From the late Sen. Doug Finley and current Sen. Irving Gerstein to MPs like Del Mastro, Jeff Watson, Shelly Glover and James Bezan, Elections Canada has no problem going after Conservatives, but they won’t lift a finger to investigate Liberals that have broken the law.
Mayrand and his team are not applying the law evenly or fairly. He prosecutes Conservatives with vigour but looks the other way when Liberals are involved.
Does this give you confidence that the man running our elections will be fair and balanced with all parties?
I don’t have that confidence. It’s time for Mayrand to go.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/08/20130802-065143.html
I personally would like to thank Brian Lilley for his outstanding contribution to reporting fact and not fiction.
God knows Brian his the best reporter the Flying circus SunNewsMerdia/Québecor as got going for them.
Don't shoot the messengers
C101
Thursday, 1 August 2013
U.S. wants exemption from Canadian law for cross-border officers, RCMP memo says
A briefing note prepared for RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson says the debate over whose laws would apply to U.S. officers working in Canada raises important questions of sovereignty and police accountability.
The United States wants its police officers to be exempt from Canadian law if they agree to take part in a highly touted cross-border policing initiative, an internal RCMP memo says. The debate over whose laws would apply to U.S. officers working in Canada raises important questions of sovereignty and police accountability, says the briefing note prepared for RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson.
“Canadians would likely have serious concerns with cross-designated officers from the U.S. not being accountable for their actions in Canada,” it says.
The planned pilot project — part of a sweeping Canada-U.S. perimeter security pact — would see the two countries build on joint border-policing efforts by creating integrated teams in areas such as intelligence and criminal investigations.
The perimeter deal, being phased in over several years, aims to ensure the safe, speedy passage of goods and people across the 49th parallel while bolstering North American defences. The October 2012 RCMP memo was intended to brief Paulson for a meeting with David Moloney, a senior adviser to the Privy Council Office for implementing the vaunted perimeter security deal. A censored version of the classified document was recently obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
It notes that plans were underway for trial projects in the areas of policing and the pre-clearance of truck cargo, each involving U.S. officers working alongside Canadian counterparts. The cargo pilot project — which has since been announced — entails U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers working in Fort Erie, Ont., and Surrey, B.C., to pre-inspect southbound shipments according to American customs procedures. The so-called Next Generation policing project — whose pilots have yet to be finalized — would involve U.S. and Canadian officers working on each other’s turf to enforce the host country’s laws.
However, according to the RCMP, the two countries haven’t seen eye to eye on the tricky question of which country’s legal system would deal with a police officer accused of breaking the law. Traditionally, co-operative initiatives in cross-border law enforcement and border management have been based on the notion that the laws of the host country apply to illegal acts on its territory and that host-country courts would have jurisdiction, the RCMP memo says.
“However, the U.S. has recently expressed concerns with the continued application of the ‘host country law model’ and has requested that its officers be exempted from the laws or the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts in Canada in the context of the Next Gen and Preclearance initiatives.”
For the cargo pre-clearance pilot projects, announced in March, Canadian law will apply to U.S. customs officers, said Public Safety Canada spokeswoman Josee Picard.
Published on youtube Jun 26, 2012 by C101
But the issue remains unsettled for the policing initiative, which was supposed to be up and running last year. The RCMP memo says there are several reasons why it “remains appropriate” for host country laws and courts to continue holding sway, including:
“Canadians place a high value on sovereignty and police accountability,” the briefing note adds.
A preliminary assessment indicates it “would not be feasible nor desirable to have two law enforcement officers working together being subjected to different regimes for accountability and criminal liability,” the memo says.
But senior Mounties recommended to Paulson that the RCMP participate in the development of options, “ensuring that law enforcement concerns are properly addressed, rather than taking a firm stance on retaining the status quo.”
Any new model must be fully reciprocal, providing Canadian police with the same protections in the United States as granted to U.S. law enforcement officials working in Canada, adds the RCMP briefing note.
“This may alleviate any concerns that there may be with respect to RCMP members being subjected to the U.S. court system.”
RCMP Sgt. Julie Gagnon said the force had no comment on the memo. Public Safety has said it would be inappropriate to discuss Canada-U.S. negotiations on the legal framework for the policing initiative. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.
By: Jim Bronskill The Canadian Press, Published on Tue Jul 30 2013
Don't kill the messengers
C101
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)