Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts

May 28, 2016

Chronicle of Obama’s Visit to Hiroshima then Nuclear Devastated


Imagine Trump walking around with that football(Nuclear Codes)
        
Image result for hiroshima bombing                                                                                






Barack Obama visited Hiroshima Friday, making him the first U.S. president to do so. During his brief speech, Obama called for an end to senseless wars and shared his hope for a world without nuclear weapons.
Below is a timeline chronicling the events that make Obama's visit to Hiroshima so significant. Also included are visualizations detailing nuclear weapon statistics by country.


August 23, 2015

“War is a Racket” Agree?



Embedded image permalink


I will make my comments about the above quote short so as to give you a chance to write on the comments below how you feel about this statement. It was a man of war who wrote this after seeing it from both sides but from the side that mostly matters, the side in which he had to both be in the middle of war as a sodier and as a commander sending young guys to their deaths and in many cases like commanders do to the guarantee abyss. I most warn you to be careful how you think about war if you only think you seen it by news reports and the way is portrayed by Hollywood.

My father was a veteran and the remains of my mother rests beneath an Army headstone. Currently have one nephew in the Armed Forces and have family that I know of serving from WWI and on fourth. You most think beyond the fighters on to the policy makers and how public opinion is always turned into the frenzy that says ‘war’, ‘war’.  We saw it in Iraq which is an even better example than Viet-Nam to show a government that lied to get the nation into war with awful results not worth the lives lost and still being lost. Even if your mind still think it was mistake but not a lie, the government does not get formed and is payed to exist to make mistakes of these magnitude particularly when we spent plenty to make sure what close society’s have in ways to harm us, like Russia, North Korea and then Iraq have behind their curtains of secrecy just like we know about Iran.

Wether you are a person that think that war is always justified or never you can agree in that war is sold to the multitudes pretty much the same way,“bad vs. evil.” Can it always be that? I am not taking away the right to defend one selves ( we have only been attack once by Japan in this county) and sometimes sending troops somewhere have saved thousands. Those things are understood but what we are seeking is a bigger sinister way of starting war, justifying war.

What do you think? No matter wether you are in the United States, China, Russia or UK there is underway war or conflict started this way and as I type this to you I know there will be in the near future.

I am giving you a chance to think and if you like express yourselves (even anonymously, following the non spam, non abusive language rules). Because of this, I wish more people would be aware of the selling process which is used in more democratic nations and in non democratic nations that control the election process or there is no process to change leaders. Why for nations in which there is no nonviolent way to change governments? Because ‘knowledge is power.’ What seems impossible today if enough people have the same true knowledge, change will occur. The problem even in nations that have elections is the ’selling’ and we know anything can be sold no matter how useless and expensive it is. One does not need to change a government to let the government know that war cannot easily be sold with lies.

October 2, 2014

Henry Kissinger ‘Recommended Smashing Cuba by air strikes’ in 1976



 This 1972 file photo shows Fidel Castro, leader of the Cuban Communist party speaking to the press in Havana, Cuba



President Gerald Ford, (R) and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1975
Kissinger (left) has been described as being 'apoplectic' about Cuba's role in Africa in discussions with Ford  
Why would Assange target Kissinger?
 
US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger drew up plans to "smash Cuba" with air strikes nearly 40 years ago, government papers obtained by researchers show.

He was angered by Cuba's 1976 military intervention in Angola and was considering retaliation if Cuban forces were deployed elsewhere in Africa. 

The information comes from documents declassified at the request of the National Security Archive.

They show that Mr Kissinger was eager for the US to stand up to Cuba. 

The documents from the Gerald R Ford Presidential Library show that US officials devised plans to attack ports and military installations in Cuba in addition to measures ordered by Mr Kissinger to deploy Marine battalions based at the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay to "clobber" the Cubans.
 
Kissinger... was insulted that a small country would ruin his plans for Africa and was essentially prepared to bring the imperial force of the United States on Fidel Castro's head”
  

Mr Kornbluh told the New York Times that Mr Kissinger was angered by what he felt was the decision by then Cuban President Fidel Castro to pursue his own foreign policy agenda in Africa rather than normalise relations with the United States.

The newspaper reports that Mr Kissinger has refused to comment on its story.

Mr Kissinger, secretary of state from 1973-77, initially supported underground efforts to improve relations with Cuba. 

But the newly released documents show he was infuriated by Cuban President Fidel Castro’s decision in late 1975 to send troops to Angola to help the newly independent nation fend off attacks from South Africa and right-wing guerrillas. 

Mr Kissinger's planned intervention came 15 years after the Bay of Pigs fiasco of April 1961
"Kissinger, the global chessboard player, was insulted that a small country would ruin his plans for Africa and was essentially prepared to bring the imperial force of the United States on Fidel Castro's head," Mr Kornbluh was quoted in the newspaper as saying.

“You can see in the conversation with [US President] Gerald Ford that he is extremely apoplectic," Mr Kornbluh said, describing the then secretary of state's language about doing harm to Cuba as "quintessentially aggressive".


"I think we are going to have to smash Castro," Mr Kissinger told Mr Ford in a White House meeting in February 1976, adding Mr Ford should defer action until after the presidential election that November.

"I agree," Mr Ford said.

US contingency plans drawn up on the options warned any military aggression by the US in Cuba could lead to a direct confrontation with the USSR.

 



Henry Kissinger was initially supportive of attempts to normalise relations with Fidel Castro's government
"The circumstances that could lead the United States to select a military option against Cuba should be serious enough to warrant further action in preparation for general war," one document said.

The plans were never undertaken, as Jimmy Carter was elected president that year.

Mr Kissinger's planned intervention came 15 years after a group of some 1,500 Cuban exiles trained and financed by the CIA launched an ill-fated invasion of Cuba from the sea in the Bay of Pigs.

The plan was to overthrow Fidel Castro and his revolution.

Instead, it turned into a humiliating defeat which pushed Cuba firmly into the arms of the Soviet Union and has soured US-Cuban relations to this day.
 

Henry Kissinger (left) is the oldest surviving former secretary of state in a list that includes James Baker, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton 

Supporters of Mr Kissinger say he played a key role in US foreign policy under presidents Nixon and Ford at the height of the Cold War, pointing out that he brokered detente with the Soviet Union, paved the way for President Nixon's landmark visit to China and who, they argue, negated the Communist threat in Latin America.

They argue that he was instrumental in securing peace deals in the Middle East and Vietnam.

But critics say he was the orchestrator of the controversial carpet bombing of neutral Cambodia during the Vietnam War and helped Pakistan, Greece, Indonesia and Chile to embark on acts of repression.

April 27, 2013

A Library Dedicated and Accolades Given to A Failed President, Meanwhile We are Fighting a Religion and People Wanting to Die to see Us Die



A woman walks by a controversial ad in a New York subway station last fall. The word
Does this nation have the time now to figure out were is we screw up and continue to. A real discussion on any high level that admits mistakes and sets a plan of correction, which need to include some justice and self defense. Both together, not one following another 4 or 8 yrs apart.    adamfoxie*

This week on The Big Three, we tackled the George W. Bush library opening, frustration over flight furloughs (complete with congressional finger-pointing) and Dean Obeidallah's CNN.com column, "I'm a Muslim and I hate terrorism," which seems sadly necessary in the wake of Boston.

The opening of a presidential library is supposed to be a time for national unity. All the living presidents attend, standing together for a photo op and offering complimentary speeches about the newest inductee to the ex-presidents' club.

But during all the same pageantry in Dallas at the opening of Bush's library, a less civil debate on the Big Three
Former president George W. Bush speaks during the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Center Thursday, April 25, 2013, in Dallas. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip) (and across the country) was going on about 43's legacy. Margaret Hoover is a proud Bush administration alumna and attended the opening in Dallas. Dean, it is fair to say, is not a Bush fan. At all.


And so the debate raged, with Margaret citing his investment in foreign aid to stem the tide of AIDS in Africa and keeping the nation safe from terrorism after the attacks of 9/11. Dean acknowledged that Bush might be a nice guy to hang out with but asked whether the library would consist primarily of coloring books. As the card-carrying centrist in the group, I try to find common ground. And so it goes.
President Barack Obama laughs with former first lady Barbara Bush during the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Center Thursday, April 25, 2013, in Dallas. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
At the time of our discussions, the sequester cuts were kicking in, and airline travelers were feeling the pain, with 40% of flights delayed this week because of the furlough of air-traffic controllers. Congress has since overwhelmingly approved a measure to get the air travel system up to speed again after the delays provoked a round of the blame game on Capitol Hill, with conservatives accusing the president of "playing politics" with these particular cuts. Margaret agreed with this assessment. I ain't buying it.

The sequester was supposed to be so dumb and painful that it would compel Congress to reason together and find deficit and debt reduction to more strategic means. It didn't. And while the rhetoric of cutting government spending is popular, the reality is predictably less so. And so we're being treated to the absurdity of conservative activist groups such as Americans for Prosperity -- whose sole purpose is to argue for cuts in government spending -- complaining about the practical effects of those very cuts on which they insisted. This is the old dynamic we see too much of -- cuts for thee but not for me.

Finally, in the wake of the Boston terror attacks, America and the American Muslim community have navigated the tricky territory of confronting the ideology of radical Islam that apparently inspired the attacks without engaging in group blame.

Dean's excellent CNN.com column tries to clarify some of the bigoted myths by making the point that American Muslims might hate jihadis even more than typical Americans do because the murderers claim to represent their faith and cause a massive backlash against this growing American community. Read the column -- and then listen to our conversation, tackling subjects such as why extremists of other faiths tend not to blow things up.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.    John Avlon, Margaret Hoover, Dean Obeidallah


April 10, 2013

Iraq War Cost Dividend Could Get Us Renewable Energy for Half The Country


cost of war solar
I am giving you all the specifics because I don’t want to hear people say that such is not possible. Not only is that possible, that is just one of the elements  that we would get from the war dividend. This is not meant to be political but to bring forward information. Information for the next time. Information that one of those dead beats in DC wants to cut the cost of living on vets, disables and seniors, I am asking to think about ONE bomb. One high explosive cluster bomb, or a Tomahawk Missile and how many millions ONE cost. I don’t want to hear that talk again even if it comes from the Democratic President. I hope you believe that too or at least think about it.  Adam


  

Opportunities Forsaken: The Iraq War and Renewable Energy



For the Amount Spent on the Iraq War the US Could be Generating 40% to 60% of its Electricity with Renewable Energy

The US is noting a somber milestone this year: a decade of death and destruction following its invasion of Iraq.
As the country continues struggling with the moral dimension of its action, what has become clear is the staggering cost to future Americans and the opportunities forsaken here at home.
For it is future Americans who will pay for our rush to war—a war that was financed with debt. And it is this enormous debt that has laid siege not to Baghdad but to Washington, DC, where Austerians shout that the nation can no longer afford to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure because of the mounting interest on this debt.
On 4 July 2005, I posted the first in a series of articles on the lost opportunity for the massive development of  sources of energy in the US--lost because of our invasion of Iraq. See Beating Swords into Wind Turbines–or Solar Panels if You Like. The money we spent--or the debt we incurred--for war was money we would not invest in our own country to make the transition to a renewable future.
Now, after a decade, that bill has come due. What have we lost? What have we forsaken?
Disregarding the human cost, and disregarding our “other” war in Afghanistan, how much renewable energy could we have built with the money we spent? How far along the road toward the renewable energy transition could we have traveled?
The answer: shockingly far.
Cost of the Iraq War
The war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion through fiscal year 2013, according to Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies. That’s trillion, with a “t”. Including future costs for veteran’s care, and so on, raises the cost to $2.2 trillion.
Because the war was financed with debt, we should also include a charge for interest on the debt. The Iraq war’s share of cumulative interest on the US debt through 2053 will raise the total cost of the war to $3.9 trillion.
To weigh what opportunities we lost, we’ll consider two conditions: the direct cost, and the direct cost plus interest.
Renewable Energy Assumptions
In my previous assessments, I considered only wind or only solar. For this evaluation, I will use a mix of wind and solar.
Why a mix? Because if we want to develop an integrated system that will replace the mix of fossil fuels and nuclear power we use today, we will need a mix of renewable resources as well. Ideally, we would develop our wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass resources simultaneously. However, it is wind and solar that will provide the bulk of new generating capacity. So I’ve simplified this analysis by only considering a mix of wind and solar.
What should that mix look like? Research by French renewable authority Bernard Chabot concludes that the optimum mix requires that 60% of the generation—not of the capacity—must be from wind, and 40% of the generation from solar. Recent studies in Germany and Australia have confirmed Chabot’s work.
While the cost of solar has declined dramatically, it remains far more expensive than wind generation. Including solar as part of a mix of resources reduces the effective penetration of renewables, but is more realistic and, hence, more conservative than simply estimating how much wind could have been built.
I’ve liberally rounded the assumptions to indicate that these are all gross approximations.
The US consumes roughly 4,000 TWh of electricity per year.
Wind can be built for approximately $2,000 per kW of installed capacity.
In my initial calculation, I’ve assumed that a fleet of wind turbines will collectively generate 2,000 kWh per kW of installed capacity per year. This is conservative, as will be explained.
Solar photovoltaics can be installed in the US for anywhere from $3,000 per kW to as much as $10,000 per kW. I’ve assumed a conservative estimate of $5,000 per kW of installed capacity.
The yield from solar—again on average—is significantly less than that from wind. I’ve used an average yield of 1,000 kWh per kW of installed solar capacity.
Robert Freehling, a renewables consultant in California, has pointed out that these assumptions are much too conservative.
            Wind Yield 
The yield from wind turbines has steadily risen since I first began tracking the industry 30 years ago. This is due to a number of factors: the turbines work better than before, we install them on taller towers than before, and we’ve begun to use larger rotors than before relative to generator size.
Today, yields can range from less than 2,000 kWh per kW for inland locations like those in Germany, to more than 2,500 kWh per kW for windy locales like those in Ireland and Great Britain.
Germany represents a mature market. The country’s feed-in tariff policy provides tariffs for wind energy that are differentiated by resource intensity. This was intended by the country’s politicians as a way to move wind development away from the windy North Sea coast to the less windy interior. In doing this, Germany also opened up opportunities for its citizens living in the interior to develop their own wind energy. The policy has been a resounding success. Not only is 60% of all new wind development in the interior, less windy part of the country, but also more than 50% of all wind energy development is owned by local citizens.
France adopted a similar policy for the same reasons.
The yields in these two markets are more representative of places where policy moves wind turbines to the load, as opposed to moving the wind turbines to where it is most windy.
Freehling suggests 2,250 kWh per kW is a more representative yield.
            Solar Yield & Cost 
Solar yields in Germany vary from a low of 900 kWh per kW of DC capacity in the north to nearly 1,100 kWh per kW in the south.
Similarly, yields in the US vary widely from 1,000 kWh per kW in rainy Seattle to 1,800 kWh per kW in the blistering sun of the desert Southwest. Freehling believes a more representative yield for the US market is 1,200 kWh per kW.
Solar costs continue to plummet. If the US market ever becomes as competitive as the German market, we can expect that average installed cost of ground mounted and roof-mounted systems across the country will fall far below the $5,000 per kW I’ve assumed. Freehling suggests that the cost for a representative cross-section of installation types over the next decade is $3,350 per kW of DC capacity.
What We Lost in Renewable Opportunities 
Based on a conservative estimate, the US could have built between a quarter-million to nearly a half-million megawatts of wind energy, and 300,000 to 600,000 megawatts of solar capacity.
For comparison, today there are only 60,000 MW of wind in the US, and a paltry 7,000 MW of solar.
If we had invested the $2.2 trillion in wind and solar, the US would be generating 21% of its electricity with renewable energy. If we had invested the $3.9 trillion that the war in Iraq will ultimately cost, we would generate nearly 40% of our electricity with new renewables. Combined with the 10% of supply from existing hydroelectricity, the US could have surpassed 50% of total renewables in supply.
However, this is a conservative estimate. If we include the reasonable assumptions suggested by Robert Freehling, the contribution by renewables would be even greater.
Freehling’s assumptions raise to as much as 60% the nation’s lost potential contribution by new renewables to US electricity supply by going to war in Iraq. With the addition of existing hydroelectric generation, the opportunity to develop as much as 70% of our nation’s electricity with renewable energy was lost.
And unlike the war in Iraq, which is an expense, the development of renewable energy instead of war would have been an investment in infrastructure at home that would have paid dividends to American citizens for decades to come.

March 30, 2013

Tug of War in The GOP Who is carrying The Self Destruct Button?




March 10, 2013

Tony Blair Have to Answer Some Q’s About IRAQ

 The assertion at the time that Britain would intervene militarily against the Iraqi dictator only if all other avenues, including weapons inspections and United Nations sanctions, had been exhausted.
Mr Blair is accused of being “evangelical” in his approach to the world and hence to toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime, of making mistakes which led to British forces being ill-prepared for the invasion and caught out by the violent aftermath, and of being so determined to support President George W Bush that he imposed no preconditions for Britain going to war alongside the United States.
Meanwhile, senior Bush White House staff confirmed for the first time to The Sunday Telegraph that they had viewed it as a certainty that Mr Blair would back any US-led invasion, long before he publicly committed Britain to taking part.
They say he made clear his unwavering support for US policy nearly a year before the invasion, after a visit to the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas.


Senior Bush White House staff say Tony Blair made clear his unwavering support for US policy after a visit to Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas
The revelations come in a series of exclusive interviews and articles for The Sunday Telegraph ahead of the 10th anniversary of the “shock and awe” bombing campaign that began on March 20, and the land invasion involving 45,000 British troops that followed a few hours later.
Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain’s ambassador to Washington during the run-up to the war, writes in this newspaper today that Mr Blair’s mistakes on Iraq flowed from a “black and white” world view that was “more evangelical than the American Christian Right”.
He says that Mr Blair’s “unquestioning support” for the president “eliminated what should have been salutary British influence over American decision-making” after the prime minister became “an honorary member of this inner group” of neo-conservatives and military hawks who were setting the agenda in the United States.
He notes that a “failure to plan meticulously” for the aftermath of Saddam’s overthrow “led to almost a decade of violent chaos and the ultimate humiliation of British forces”.
Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the Armed Forces at the time, describes how the government’s “political nervousness” delayed military preparations for the conflict.
Mr Blair’s government “wanted to avoid giving the impression that war with Iraq was inevitable”, he writes inside this newspaper; as a result, the formal decision was taken “somewhat late in the day, which inevitably foreshortened the Armed Forces’ preparation time”.
Another senior officer, Maj Gen Graham Binns, who commanded a front line brigade in Iraq, discloses that financial restraints left British forces undertrained and lacking key equipment. In addition, the British were “inadequately prepared, mentally and physically, for post-conflict stabilisation”, he writes.
Stephen Hadley, Mr Bush’s deputy national security adviser, said that at a private meeting between the prime minister and the US president almost a year before the invasion was launched, “Mr Blair said that if it came to it, then at the end of the day, he would be with us if we had to move militarily against Saddam Hussein”.
He said that during the meeting at Crawford in April 2002, the position spelt out by Mr Blair was, “I am with you to see this through to the end.”
Andrew Card, the president’s chief of staff, said: “I don’t recall that any conditions were discussed. What was clear was that we shared values and stood together.”
Mark Etherington, a Foreign Office official put in charge of an entire Iraqi province six months after the invasion, said there were inadequate troops to keep it secure because the Iraqi army and police “had ceased to exist as coherent groupings”. He says the British effort was “fatally lacking binding strategy under unified leadership”.
The revelations follow years of debate and recrimination over the decision to commit Britain to joining in the invasion, including its legality, and over the failure to locate any of the weapons of mass destruction whose supposed existence was the main official justification for going to war.
Mr Blair has been accused by critics of being a “war criminal” for his role in the conflict which ultimately cost the lives of 179 British soldiers and an estimated 100,000 civilians, and admitted last month that he had “long since given up trying to persuade people it was the right decision”.
Last week, David Miliband, the former foreign secretary, said the election of George W Bush as US president was “the worst thing that ever happened to Tony Blair” because of the direction in which he led the world.
The decision to go to war in March 2003, after United Nations weapons inspectors left Iraq and without the fresh UN resolution that Britain and the US had been seeking, divided opinion in Britain and led to resignations from the government. In the end the Conservatives backed the decision, but the Liberal Democrats opposed it.
A lengthy inquiry led by Sir John Chilcot into the circumstances, ordered in June 2009, heard evidence from hundreds of witnesses and examined thousands of documents — including confidential correspondence between Mr Blair and Mr Bush — but is still several months from producing its report and conclusions.
The statement by former White House officials that Mr Blair laid down no conditions for British support for the US-led operation comes despite Downing Street assertions to the contrary.
Mr Blair has said that he pushed for the United States to put more weight behind efforts to reach a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, and that he encouraged the US to attempt what became known as “the UN route”.
But it was widely believed that soon after the 9/11 attacks on the United States by al-Qaeda, the “neo-conservatives” within the Bush administration, led by Dick Cheney, the vice-president, decided that the Iraqi regime posed a similar threat and must be dealt with militarily.
Sir Christopher lays out a series of missteps by British and US leaders but writes: “The biggest mistake of all was to conflate Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, as if they were cut from the same violent cloth.”
Despite delivering crucial diplomatic support for Washington as other European states wavered, Mr Blair’s concerns about domestic politics meant that military preparations for the invasion were hampered, even though British Armed Forces chiefs had long considered the war inevitable.
Gen Binns, who commanded the 7th Armoured Brigade in the invasion, describes political and financial constraints on preparations for war. “Our higher level training, due to take place in Poland, was curtailed for financial reasons,” he writes. “I took my officers away for some conceptual training around a model but this limited activity was no replica for realistic training.”
As the force began to assemble in northern Kuwait, he recalls, they discovered that the wrong kind of clothing had been sent from Britain.
He says: “We were grateful for several boxes of chefs’ whites and ceremonial dress, but would have preferred more body armour and desert camouflage uniform.
“The Marine Corps was very generous with its supplies – not always knowingly.”
Gen James Conway, the US Marine commander in charge of a force of 90,000, of whom 25,000 were British, recalled asking General Robin Brims, the commander of the 1st UK Armoured Division, what his capabilities were.
“He said: ‘I have great tanks, but I don’t have the logistics for them to go very far’, so everything pointed to them taking and holding Basra.”
Military chiefs on both sides of the Atlantic excoriated the decision by Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief, to disband the Iraqi army and sack all officials who belonged to Saddam’s party shortly after the victory.
Soon afterwards the insurgency began, leading to years of bloodshed and the loss of more lives than during the invasion.
Gen Jackson writes of the “inexplicable decisions to disband the Iraqi security forces and to sack Ba’ath party members, however junior”. Gen Conway said: “I’ve been disappointed by the results in Iraq. I think we had a great opportunity for a much better end-state.
“One of the first things the CPA did was to disband the Iraqi army. We ended up fighting those same men in Anbar province for four years.”
He also expressed shock that no weapons of mass destruction were ever discovered, since that was “in large measure” why they were in Iraq. “We checked every bunker between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad and there were just none to be found.”
Ari Fleischer, the official White House spokesman at the time, said the US was equally let down. “I don’t believe that George Bush would have gone to war if we concluded that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD.”
British soldier to be questioned by Iraq war crime investigators 
 Britain in Iraq 2003-2009

Amazon SearchBox Use it for All Meerchandise

The Forest Needs help

Summer Athlete

Adamfoxie Blog Int.

Adamfoxie Blog Int.
Amazon

ONE

ONE
Relief World Hunger

Taylor Made 2016 Family Clubs

Click Here To Get Anything by Amazon- That will keep US Going

Amazon EcHo

Blog Archive/White No# Stories per Month/year

Popular Posts

Everyday at the Movies

Orangutans ARE Part of the Forest

The Gay Man in You♥ or Him