Originally posted by Arul Doss: dear Webizens, I am an Indian, and this is the first time ever that I write my comments on a web log, it is indeed humbling to do so, many may dis agree, but technology has moved at real cyber speed, my wishes to my Somali Comrades out on this site, thank you for having a site like this. God Bless and keep you all I work at this place, and our mail room manager is from India (but lived here for 15yrs). I have to say he is the best man i have met in this place. Everyday, me and him during lunch break discussus about world affairs, and Indian affairs. He is a good catholic Indian, and hates bush as much as i do. Indians are really wonderful poeple, and extremely creative, and smart.

I have a question for the nomads here. Lets say Somalia gets better, and we have a legitimate gov't. As we all know, Somaliya's Economy has been virtually destroyed by the civil war. Keeping that mind, what if the IMF/World Bank has offered us a LOAN, to rebuild our country? And if they said, we have to open our markets to International companies? Do you think, for Somaliya's economy to grow, we will have to sacrifice something, maybe our sovegnety? Does anyone think there is evil Amerikaan/European plan to economically dominate less developed country?

Brother northern i have to say you are a very observant nomad. The power went off for couple of days, and they make this big deal about it? I remember in Kismaayo how the power would go off, for couple of months, possibly year, and will come back only to go out again in the same day. Rumor has, the white house was also effected by this. But you wont hear that on the Amerikaan media.

DADDY, WHY DID WE HAVE TO ATTACK IRAQ? Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, honey. Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them. Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq? A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections. Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election. Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction? A: To use them in a war, silly. Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them? A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves. Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with? A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense. Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did. A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway. Q: And what was that? A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country. Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country? A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people. Q: Kind of like what they do in China? A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer. Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people? A: Right. Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured? A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured. Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China? A: I told you, China is different. Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq? A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist. Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad? A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad. Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad? A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured. Q: Like in Iraq? A: Exactly. Q: And like in China, too? A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not. Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor? A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us. Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists? A: Don't be a smart-*** . Q: I didn't think I was being one. A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba. Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement? A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway. Q: What's a military coup? A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States. Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup? A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend. Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate? A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate. Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader? A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan. Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan? A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th. Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th? A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans. Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that? A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban. Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands? A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too. Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001? A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs. Q: Fighting drugs? A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies. Q: How did they do such a good job? A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off. Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons? A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread. Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia? A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply. Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too? A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering. Q: What's the difference? A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name. A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends. Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia. A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan. Q: Who trained them? A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden. Q: Was he from Afghanistan? A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man. Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once. A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s. Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about? A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now. Q: So the Soviets, I mean the Russians, are now our friends? A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either. Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too? A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast. Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do? A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade. Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s? A: Well, yeah. For a while. Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then? A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily. Q: Why did that make him our friend? A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy. Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds? A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend. Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend? A: Most of the time, yes. Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy? A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better. Q: Why? A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq? Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right? A: Yes. Q : But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq? A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do. Q : So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head? A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night. : Good night, Daddy.

By CNN Senior China Analyst Willy Wo-Lap Lam Tuesday, March 25, 2003 Beijing has said the war in Iraq would lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- The Iraqi war has convinced the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership that some form of confrontation with the U.S. could come earlier than expected. Beijing has also begun to fine-tune its domestic and security policies to counter the perceived threat of U.S. "neo-imperialism." As more emphasis is being put on boosting national strength and cohesiveness, a big blow could be dealt to both economic and political reform. That the new leadership has concluded China is coming up against formidable challenges in the short to medium term is evident from recent statements by President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao. Hu indicated earlier this year Beijing must pay more attention to global developments so that "China make good preparations before the rainstorm ... and be in a position to seize the initiative." Wen also pointed out in the first meeting of the State Council, or cabinet, last Saturday the leadership "must keep a cool head." "We must boost our consciousness about disasters and downturns -- and think about dangers in the midst of [apparent] safety," he said. Alarm bells about a deteriorating international situation have been sounded by the CCP's secretive Leading Group on National Security (LGNS), which coordinates policies in areas including diplomacy, defense and energy. The LGNS, which is headed by Hu, has since early this month called a series of meetings to discuss ways to handle the Iraqi crisis. In the near term, of course, the focus is on the impact of rising oil prices -- and on the need to build up a strategic oil reserve that can last at least 30 days. However, economic concerns are not the top priority. Given the likelihood oil prices will drop after the resolution of the conflict, some government economists are saying the war's impact on this year's economic performance will be insubstantial. Officials even cite the safe haven theory to predict foreign direct investment flowing into China will exceed the record $52 billion last year. Of more concern to the LGNS is the perceived expansion of American unilateralism if not neo-imperialism. As People's Daily commentator Huang Peizhao pointed out last Saturday, U.S. moves in the Middle East "have served the goal of seeking world-wide domination." State Council think-tank member Tong Gang saw the conflict as the first salvo in Washington's bid to "build a new world order under U.S. domination." Chinese strategists think particularly if the U.S. can score a relatively quick victory over Baghdad, it will soon turn to Asia -- and begin efforts to "tame" China. It is understood the LGNS believes the U.S. will take on North Korea -- still deemed a "lips-and-teeth" ally of China's -- as early as this summer. These developments have prompted China to change its long-standing geopolitical strategy, which still held true as late as the 16th CCP Congress last November. Until late last year, Beijing believed a confrontation with the U.S. could be delayed -- and China could through hewing to the late Deng Xiaoping's "keep a low profile" theory afford to concentrate almost exclusively on economic development. "Now, many cadres and think-tank members think Beijing should adopt a more pro-active if not aggressive policy to thwart U.S. aggression," said a Chinese source close to the diplomatic establishment. He added hard-line elements in the People's Liberation Army (PLA) had advocated providing weapons to North Korea to help Pyongyang defend itself against a possible U.S. missile strike at its nuclear facilities. Forestalling the challenge Hu was elected president of China by the NPC this month. Hu was elected president of China by the NPC this month. Even less hawkish experts are advocating beefing up the national security apparatus. Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) economist Yang Fan pointed out the recent global flare-ups had alerted China to the imperative of improving national security and cohesiveness. "Equal weight should be given to economic development and national security," Yang said. "As we become more prosperous, we must concentrate our forces [on safeguarding national safety]." What is China doing to forestall the perceived U.S. challenge? Firstly, the CCP leadership is fostering nationalistic sentiments, a sure-fire way to promote much-needed cohesiveness. While not encouraging anti-U.S. demonstrations, Beijing has informed the people of what the media calls "increasingly treacherous international developments." This explains what analysts including Beijing scholars considered the unexpectedly virulent official reaction to the start of the Iraq war. Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said the U.S.-led military campaign had "trampled on the U.N. constitution and international law" and that it would lead to regional and global instability. Equally tough statements were issued by the National People's Congress (NPC) and the advisory Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Major official media such as Xinhua and People's Daily have run dozens of articles and analyses whose gist is that, in the words of commentator Li Xuejiang, the invasion of Iraq had "damaged the international order." In an apparent departure from Beijing's cautious attitude at the beginning of the Iraqi crisis, authorities last weekend allowed a group of nationalist intellectuals to hold a conference condemning U.S. "hegemonism." The corollary of boosting national cohesiveness could be the suppression of dissent, particularly politically incorrect views expressed by "pro- West" intellectuals. The warning and punishment that party authorities recently meted out to several Beijing and provincial publications may augur a relatively prolonged period of ideological control in the interest of promoting "unity of thinking." On the economic front, the authorities may play up the imperative of concentrating resources to boost China's "economic security" and "energy security." "The Wen leadership is checking out why earlier plans to build up a strategic oil reserve failed to materialize last year, when prices were much lower," said a Beijing-based party source. "It is possible that bucking the overall trend of market reforms, Beijing may bring back more government fiats to sectors deemed to have strategic and national-security implications." It is instructive that in his 90-minute long interview with the international media last week, Wen was quite reticent about boosting economic reform such as the liberalization of state-owned enterprises. In accordance with the theory of "the synthesis of [the needs of] war and peace," civilian economic projects in areas including infrastructure may be planned will the requirements of the defense forces in mind. On the military front, the Iraqi conflict will kick start another season of accelerated modernization of weaponry. Diplomatic analysts in Beijing said PLA officers and strategists had been scrutinizing the latest hardware used by American and British forces. They pointed out the PLA's astonishment at the wizardry of American firearms used in the 1991 Gulf War was a major factor behind the Chinese army's aggressive modernization drive through the 1990s. Academy of Military Sciences (AMS) expert Peng Guanqian pointed out that the Iraqi war would provide the Pentagon with "a testing ground for new military equipment and strategies." The Liberation Army Daily last Friday quoted unnamed officers from the Army and the People's Armed Police as saying the PLA must "quicken the pace of military modernization." Such developments could in turn hasten a possible showdown between the two countries that harbor deep-seated mistrust of each other even in relatively tranquil times.

Is a quote from George "Whopper" Bush. He was speaking to Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas at the last peace summit: "God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." At first I thought this was a joke but I wouldn't put anything past the mental midget, coke head from Crawford. Every sick cultist and tyrant in the history of the world from the Roman Caesars to Adolph Hitler to Jim Jones believed they had some special line to "god" and a divine provenance of sorts that nobody else had. Delusional meglomania seem to come with the terretory. I'm not saying that God does not speak to his people directly from time to time. I'm saying he doesn't speak to apostate, eccumenicalist liars, criminals and thieves like Bush, except to tell them "repent, repent, repent." Neither am I suggesting that George II didn't(or doesn't) hear voices. He very likely does, but they are not of God, more likely the devil. I wonder if it was "god" who told him about the WMD's, the warm Iraqi welcoming committee, and that the Iraqi's would govern themselves in 2 months. God doesn't lie; that's the devil's racket and Skull and Bones Bush is his highest ranking disciple.

TEHRAN, Aug 18 (AFP) - Iran warned Israel on Monday against carrying out any "adventurist" military attak on its nuclear sites. "I hope the Zionist regime will not commit any adventurist act," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Assefi said. Israel has "demonstrated that it is adventurist and does not respect any principles and, if it makes such a mistake, it will pay a very heavy price," he added. Assefi was responding to a journalist, who referred to a report last week in the Washington Post saying that Sharon had raised the issue with US President George W. Bush when he visited the White House recently. The newspaper said Sharon told Bush Iran was much closer to producing nuclear weapons than US intelligence believes, triggering concern that Israel is seriously considering a preemptive strike against Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor.

Tucson plant to do most of work on missile interceptor By Alan D. Fischer ARIZONA DAILY STAR Tucson's Raytheon Missile Systems has been awarded a three-year, $881.4 million contract to continue to develop and manufacture an integral part of the nation's ballistic missile defense system. The company, Southern Arizona's largest private employer with more than 10,000 workers, will provide the U.S. Navy with Standard Missile-3 ship-launched missiles for deployment and testing, said Sara Hammond, a Raytheon spokeswoman. The missile carries a warhead into space that is designed to intercept and destroy incoming short- to medium-range ballistic missiles. It is known as a kinetic warhead because it carries no explosives, but destroys the target by smashing into it at high speed - with a closing velocity of up to 10,000 feet per second. The contract calls for Raytheon to produce five of the missiles for deployment on Navy Aegis cruisers. The project will help meet President Bush's December 2002 order calling for deployment of the missile defense system by September 2004, Hammond said. Bush's order calls for up to 20 of the sea-based interceptors to be deployed in 2005. Missiles will also be produced for an ongoing testing program. Of four Standard Missile-3 tests to date, three have intercepted their targets, with the most recent test in June failing, Hammond said. Testing will continue this year, she said. The $881.4 million contract is a boon for the company. "This is a very significant contract for Raytheon as a leader in missile defense," said Louise Francesconi, president of Raytheon's Missile Systems business, in a statement. The missile, as well as the kill vehicle it carries, are developed and made here. The majority of the work will be done in Tucson, but some components will come from suppliers, including Boeing Co. and Alliant Techsystems. The contract will mean no new Tucson jobs, but will keep existing engineering and manufacturing staffers busy. Hammond would not disclose how many Raytheon employees work on the Standard Missile-3 project. The Standard Missile program has been under way for half a century. The Standard Missile-3 has an additional rocket motor to propel the warhead into space. The ship-borne Standard Missile-3 offers flexibility that land-based missile defense systems lack. "The ship can go to where it is needed, near a hot spot, and stand by in times of conflict," Hammond said. Shares of Raytheon fell 11 cents to $31. They have fallen 7.9 percent over the past year.

Tucson plant to do most of work on missile interceptor By Alan D. Fischer ARIZONA DAILY STAR Tucson's Raytheon Missile Systems has been awarded a three-year, $881.4 million contract to continue to develop and manufacture an integral part of the nation's ballistic missile defense system. The company, Southern Arizona's largest private employer with more than 10,000 workers, will provide the U.S. Navy with Standard Missile-3 ship-launched missiles for deployment and testing, said Sara Hammond, a Raytheon spokeswoman. The missile carries a warhead into space that is designed to intercept and destroy incoming short- to medium-range ballistic missiles. It is known as a kinetic warhead because it carries no explosives, but destroys the target by smashing into it at high speed - with a closing velocity of up to 10,000 feet per second. The contract calls for Raytheon to produce five of the missiles for deployment on Navy Aegis cruisers. The project will help meet President Bush's December 2002 order calling for deployment of the missile defense system by September 2004, Hammond said. Bush's order calls for up to 20 of the sea-based interceptors to be deployed in 2005. Missiles will also be produced for an ongoing testing program. Of four Standard Missile-3 tests to date, three have intercepted their targets, with the most recent test in June failing, Hammond said. Testing will continue this year, she said. The $881.4 million contract is a boon for the company. "This is a very significant contract for Raytheon as a leader in missile defense," said Louise Francesconi, president of Raytheon's Missile Systems business, in a statement. The missile, as well as the kill vehicle it carries, are developed and made here. The majority of the work will be done in Tucson, but some components will come from suppliers, including Boeing Co. and Alliant Techsystems. The contract will mean no new Tucson jobs, but will keep existing engineering and manufacturing staffers busy. Hammond would not disclose how many Raytheon employees work on the Standard Missile-3 project. The Standard Missile program has been under way for half a century. The Standard Missile-3 has an additional rocket motor to propel the warhead into space. The ship-borne Standard Missile-3 offers flexibility that land-based missile defense systems lack. "The ship can go to where it is needed, near a hot spot, and stand by in times of conflict," Hammond said. Shares of Raytheon fell 11 cents to $31. They have fallen 7.9 percent over the past year.

Monday, July 28, 2003 By Jack Kelly, Post-Gazette National Security Writer Snapshots of U.S. space weapons envisioned or under development: 'Rods from God' In April, within 15 minutes of receiving a report that Saddam Hussein had entered a restaurant in Baghdad, a B-1B bomber dropped four 2,000-pound satellite-guided bombs on the place. It now appears Saddam slipped out of the building by a secret exit. But if one space-based weapon now being researched had been orbiting above Iraq -- and had worked as envisioned -- Saddam almost certainly wouldn't have got away. Colloquially called "Rods from God," this weapon would consist of orbiting platforms stocked with tungsten rods perhaps 20 feet long and one foot in diameter that could be satellite-guided to targets anywhere on Earth within minutes. Accurate within about 25 feet, they would strike at speeds upwards of 12,000 feet per second, enough to destroy even hardened bunkers several stories underground. No explosives would be needed. The speed and weight of the rods would lend them all the force they need. This principle was applied in Iraq to destroy tanks that Saddam's forces shielded near mosques, schools or hospitals. U.S. aviators used concrete practice bombs. Jerry Pournelle, a science writer and chairman of the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy, came up with the idea, which he originally named "Thor" after the Norse god of thunder. The Pentagon won't say how far along the project, or variants of the idea, may be in development. Space planes Closer to operational readiness is a hypersonic bomber which could attack nearly any target in the world within four hours from bases in the United States. The FALCON (an acronym for Force Application and Launch from the Continental United States) would be sent into the upper atmosphere by a boost vehicle and cruise at an altitude of 100,000 feet at speeds up to 12 times the speed of sound. The first flight demonstration is scheduled for 2006. Besides being able to engage a target faster than conventional bombers, the FALCON would be virtually invulnerable. No fighter aircraft or anti-aircraft missile could fly as high, and at Mach 12, the FALCON could outrun antiaircraft missiles. No foreign bases would be needed because the FALCON's range and speed would allow it to be based on U.S. soil. Air Force Space Command in Colorado Springs is already thinking about a follow-on to FALCON -- a genuine space plane that would fly even higher and faster, stay up longer and carry more weapons. "Once a target is identified, the space plane can respond from the U.S. and strike worldwide targets in under an hour," SpaceCom researchers said in a white paper last year. A key advantage of a space plane, the writers said, is its weapons could enter the atmosphere over a target, so there would be no need to seek overflight permission from other countries. "Technology exists today to create this capability and evolve it now," they wrote. Space lasers The Air Force soon will begin integrated testing of its first Airborne Laser. If it proves reliable, it could be deployed in three or four years. Housed in a modified Boeing 747, the airborne laser is designed to cruise at 40,000 feet and engage tactical ballistic missiles like the Scud shortly after liftoff. If a missile is lazed for 3 to 5 seconds, its oxidizer or fuel tank would explode, destroying the missile and spreading debris over the launch site. Lasers that work in the atmosphere would work even better in space. Air refracts and weakens laser beams, and a great deal of power is required to punch through it. President Ronald Reagan conceived of space-based lasers as a key element of his "Star Wars" defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles, but they have proved difficult to develop because of the need to push their heavy power sources into orbit. Besides destroying enemy ICBMs, space-based lasers would also be designed to disrupt or destroy enemy satellites and knock out high- flying enemy aircraft or cruise missiles. Satellite killers, 'bodyguards' The Air Force has plans for a variety of weapons to protect U.S. satellites, and to destroy or disable enemy satellites. They are known collectively as anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons. Some would be based in space. Others would be on the ground, on ships, or mounted on airplanes. Some would be directed energy weapons (lasers or high-powered microwaves). Some would have explosive warheads, and some would destroy a target by running into it. An ASAT weapon that could be used for both defense and offense is described in an Air Force 2025 study. "Satellite bodyguards" would consist of approximately five satellites placed in close proximity to the satellite being protected. Some would be decoys. Others would be "hunter-killers," armed with directed energy weapons to blind or destroy enemy ASAT weapons. The "hunter-killer" satellites would be designed to detect space-based threats themselves and receive warnings from Earth. Unmanned aerial vehicles The Air Force is working on a family of "long loiter" Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): one for reconnaissance, another to strike targets and a "mother ship" -- a UAV itself -- which would deploy and recover smaller combat vehicles. The "mother ship" would store solar energy and transfer it to vehicles. The "Strike" UAV would be able to loiter over a target for 24 hours or more. It would carry missiles and bombs for precision strikes on ground targets but would have only limited air-to-air capability. The more ambitious "Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicle" could be used either for reconnaissance or attack. It would contain "multispectral" sensors -- optical, infrared, laser, radar, etc. -- and a variety of precision-guided weapons to attack ground targets. This vehicle also could jam enemy transmissions and protect U.S. transmissions from electronic countermeasures. Also under consideration are UAVs that could airdrop supplies to troops from high altitudes. UAVs operate in the atmosphere, but must be controlled through satellites if they are to operate at ranges beyond line of sight, approximately 130 miles.

Monday, July 28, 2003 By Jack Kelly, Post-Gazette National Security Writer Snapshots of U.S. space weapons envisioned or under development: 'Rods from God' In April, within 15 minutes of receiving a report that Saddam Hussein had entered a restaurant in Baghdad, a B-1B bomber dropped four 2,000-pound satellite-guided bombs on the place. It now appears Saddam slipped out of the building by a secret exit. But if one space-based weapon now being researched had been orbiting above Iraq -- and had worked as envisioned -- Saddam almost certainly wouldn't have got away. Colloquially called "Rods from God," this weapon would consist of orbiting platforms stocked with tungsten rods perhaps 20 feet long and one foot in diameter that could be satellite-guided to targets anywhere on Earth within minutes. Accurate within about 25 feet, they would strike at speeds upwards of 12,000 feet per second, enough to destroy even hardened bunkers several stories underground. No explosives would be needed. The speed and weight of the rods would lend them all the force they need. This principle was applied in Iraq to destroy tanks that Saddam's forces shielded near mosques, schools or hospitals. U.S. aviators used concrete practice bombs. Jerry Pournelle, a science writer and chairman of the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy, came up with the idea, which he originally named "Thor" after the Norse god of thunder. The Pentagon won't say how far along the project, or variants of the idea, may be in development. Space planes Closer to operational readiness is a hypersonic bomber which could attack nearly any target in the world within four hours from bases in the United States. The FALCON (an acronym for Force Application and Launch from the Continental United States) would be sent into the upper atmosphere by a boost vehicle and cruise at an altitude of 100,000 feet at speeds up to 12 times the speed of sound. The first flight demonstration is scheduled for 2006. Besides being able to engage a target faster than conventional bombers, the FALCON would be virtually invulnerable. No fighter aircraft or anti-aircraft missile could fly as high, and at Mach 12, the FALCON could outrun antiaircraft missiles. No foreign bases would be needed because the FALCON's range and speed would allow it to be based on U.S. soil. Air Force Space Command in Colorado Springs is already thinking about a follow-on to FALCON -- a genuine space plane that would fly even higher and faster, stay up longer and carry more weapons. "Once a target is identified, the space plane can respond from the U.S. and strike worldwide targets in under an hour," SpaceCom researchers said in a white paper last year. A key advantage of a space plane, the writers said, is its weapons could enter the atmosphere over a target, so there would be no need to seek overflight permission from other countries. "Technology exists today to create this capability and evolve it now," they wrote. Space lasers The Air Force soon will begin integrated testing of its first Airborne Laser. If it proves reliable, it could be deployed in three or four years. Housed in a modified Boeing 747, the airborne laser is designed to cruise at 40,000 feet and engage tactical ballistic missiles like the Scud shortly after liftoff. If a missile is lazed for 3 to 5 seconds, its oxidizer or fuel tank would explode, destroying the missile and spreading debris over the launch site. Lasers that work in the atmosphere would work even better in space. Air refracts and weakens laser beams, and a great deal of power is required to punch through it. President Ronald Reagan conceived of space-based lasers as a key element of his "Star Wars" defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles, but they have proved difficult to develop because of the need to push their heavy power sources into orbit. Besides destroying enemy ICBMs, space-based lasers would also be designed to disrupt or destroy enemy satellites and knock out high- flying enemy aircraft or cruise missiles. Satellite killers, 'bodyguards' The Air Force has plans for a variety of weapons to protect U.S. satellites, and to destroy or disable enemy satellites. They are known collectively as anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons. Some would be based in space. Others would be on the ground, on ships, or mounted on airplanes. Some would be directed energy weapons (lasers or high-powered microwaves). Some would have explosive warheads, and some would destroy a target by running into it. An ASAT weapon that could be used for both defense and offense is described in an Air Force 2025 study. "Satellite bodyguards" would consist of approximately five satellites placed in close proximity to the satellite being protected. Some would be decoys. Others would be "hunter-killers," armed with directed energy weapons to blind or destroy enemy ASAT weapons. The "hunter-killer" satellites would be designed to detect space-based threats themselves and receive warnings from Earth. Unmanned aerial vehicles The Air Force is working on a family of "long loiter" Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): one for reconnaissance, another to strike targets and a "mother ship" -- a UAV itself -- which would deploy and recover smaller combat vehicles. The "mother ship" would store solar energy and transfer it to vehicles. The "Strike" UAV would be able to loiter over a target for 24 hours or more. It would carry missiles and bombs for precision strikes on ground targets but would have only limited air-to-air capability. The more ambitious "Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicle" could be used either for reconnaissance or attack. It would contain "multispectral" sensors -- optical, infrared, laser, radar, etc. -- and a variety of precision-guided weapons to attack ground targets. This vehicle also could jam enemy transmissions and protect U.S. transmissions from electronic countermeasures. Also under consideration are UAVs that could airdrop supplies to troops from high altitudes. UAVs operate in the atmosphere, but must be controlled through satellites if they are to operate at ranges beyond line of sight, approximately 130 miles.

TEHRAN, Aug 19 (AFP) - Iran's supreme leader has said his country will never give up its nuclear technology under pressure from the United States and others, who are urging Tehran to agree to more stringent inspections of its programs. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told a gathering of Iranian ambassadors late Monday that "the position of the United States and certain Western countries, which require Iran to give up nuclear technology is unsuitable, unjust and oppressive, and the Islamic Republic of Iran will never accept these requests." "The conditions in which the United States deals with the rest of the world as a creditor, always asking for more, make any weakness and surrender the greatest strategic error," the state news agency IRNA reported him as saying. "Iranian nuclear science is indigenous and peaceful, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, based on religious principles, will never use weapons of mass destruction," Khamenei added. On Monday Tehran said it was still discussing with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) whether to allow snap UN inspections of its nuclear sites. "We are still discussing the additional protocol" to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said. Tehran is under strong international pressure to prove it is not secretly developing atomic weapons by signing the extra NPT clause, which would allow UN inspectors to descend on suspect sites without warning. The IAEA's board of governors will review the Iranian case on September 8, with the threat that it might be forwarded to the UN Security Council. Asefi told reporters "to wait and see what will happen during the (September 8) meeting." "Any decision will depend on the explanations given by the agency, on the ambiguities that exist (over the additional protocol), our responsibilities and those of the international community with regard to Iran," he added. Oil-rich Iran said Thursday it was going ahead with the second phase of a nuclear power plant to satisfy its growing demand for power and prevent long-term energy shortages, denying US allegations that it is covertly developing nuclear weapons. Two IAEA delegations of inspectors and lawyers visited Iran last week to try to ease fears over the implications of the additional protocol and to inspect nuclear sites. Following the visit, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of the Islamic republic's atomic agency, said Wednesday that discussions with IAEA experts had eased "some of Iran's uncertainties," particularly with regard to military secrets and strategy. He said Tehran and the IAEA should reach "positive" results by September over the additional protocol. But the Iranian press quoted diplomatic sources as saying that IAEA inspectors found traces of enriched uranium. Questioned about this by reporters, Asefi said: "It was not up to the diplomats to speak about such a technical and expert subject without knowing the details. It is up to the agency to judge and to give its point of view. We will wait until September." However, it remains uncertain as to whether Iran will ultimately agree to a new deal with the IAEA. Some Iranian conservatives are opposed to the NPT additional protocol and have even called on Tehran to renounce the treaty, fearing that IAEA inspectors would use it to violate military and strategic secrets. Ali Larijani, the head of Iranian radio and television, said Sunday that there is "no guarantee that the Americans, after the signing of the additional protocol and inspections of nuclear installations, will not invent other pretexts to accuse Iran of developing weapons of mass destruction." "There is no reason to accept signing the additional protocol because they (NPT members) did not help the Islamic republic of Iran to develop nuclear technology," added Larijani, who was appointed by Khamenei. If "Tehran resists the pressures, the Westerners will end up changing their stance towards Iran," he concluded.

Everyone likes to say, "Hitler did this", and, "Hitler did that". But the truth is Hitler did very little. He was a world class tyrant, but the evil actually done by the Third Reich, from the death camps to WW2 was all done by German citizens who were afraid to question if what they were told by their government was the truth or not, and who because they did not want to admit to themselves that they were afraid to question the government, refused to see the truth behind the Reichstag Fire, refused to see the invasion by Poland was a staged fake, and followed Hitler into national disaster. The German people of the late 1930s imagined themselves to be brave. They saw themselves as the heroic Germans depicted by the Wagnerian Operas, the descendants of the fierce Germanic warriors who had hunted wild boar with nothing but spears and who had defeated three of Rome's mightiest legions in the Tuetenberg Forest. But in truth, by the 1930s, the German people had become civilized and tamed, culturally obsessed with fine details in both science and society. Their self-image of bravery was both salve and slavery. Germans were required to behave as if they were brave, even when they were not. It's easy to look back and realize what a jerk Hitler was. But at the time, Hitler looked pretty good to the German people, with the help of the media. He was TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year in 1938. The German people assumed they were safe from a tyrant. They lived in a Republic, after all, with strict laws regarding what the government could and more importantly could not do. Their leader was a devoutly religious man, and had even sung with the boy's choir of a monastery in his youth. The reality was that the German people, as individuals, had lost their courage. The German government preferred it that way as a fearful people are easier to rule than a courageous one. But the German people didn't wish to lose their self-image of courage. So, when confronted with a situation demanding individual courage, in the form of a government gone wrong, the German people simply pretended that the situation did not exist. And in that simple self-deception lay the ruin of an entire nation and the coming of the second World War. When the Reichstag burned down, most Germans simply refused to believe suggestions that the fire had been staged by Hitler himself. They were afraid to. But so trapped were the Germans by their belief in their own bravery that they willed themselves to be blind to the evidence before their eyes, so that they could nod in agreement with Der Fuhrer while still imagining themselves to have courage, even as they avoided the one situation which most required real courage; to stand up to Hitler's lies and deceptions. When Hitler requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under German law, but powers Hitler claimed he needed to have to deal with the "terrorists", the German people, having already sold their souls to their self-delusions, agreed. The temporary powers were conferred, and once conferred lasted until Germany itself was destroyed. When Hitler staged a phony invasion from Poland, the vast majority of the German people, their own self-image dependant on continuing blindness to Hitler's deceptions, did not question why Poland would have done something so ****** , and found themselves in a war. But Hitler knew he ruled a nation of cowards, and knew he had to spend the money to make the new war something cowards could fight and win. He decorated his troops with regalia to make them proud of themselves, further trapping them in their self-image. Hitler copied the parade regalia of ancient Rome, to remind the Germans of the defeat of the legions at the Tuetenberg Forest. Talismans were added from orthodox religions and the occult to fill the soldiers with delusions of mystical strengths and an afterlife if they fell in battle. Finally, knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, Hitler spent vast sums of money on his wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, the world's first cruise missile and the world's first guided missile, weapons that could be used to kill at a distance, so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they were doing. The German people were lured into WW2 not because they were brave, but because they were cowards who wanted to be seen as brave, and found that shooting long range weapons at people they could not see took less courage than standing up to Hitler. Sent into battle by that false image of courage, the Germans were dependent on their wonder-weapons. When the wonder-weapons stopped working, the Germans lost the war. I remember as a child listening to the stories of WW2 from my grandfather and my uncles who had served in Europe. I wondered how the German people could have been so ****** as to have ever elected Hitler dog catcher, let alone leader of the nation. Such is the clarity of historical hindsight. And with that clarity, I see the exact same mechanism that Hitler used at work here in this nation. The American people imagine themselves to be brave. They see themselves as the heroic Americans depicted by Western Movies, the descendants of the fierce patriot warriors who had tamed the frontier and defeated the might of the British Empire. But in truth, by the dawn of the third millennium, the American people have become civilized and tamed, culturally obsessed with fine details in both science and society. Their self-image of bravery is both salve and slavery. Americans are required to behave as if they are brave, even when they are not. The American people assume they are safe. They live in a Republic, after all, with strict laws regarding what the government can and more importantly cannot do. Their leader is a devoutly religious man. The reality is that the American people, as individuals, have lost their courage. The government prefers it that way as a fearful people are easier to rule than a courageous one. But Americans don't wish to lose their self-image of courage. So, when confronted with a situation demanding courage, in the form of a government gone wrong, the American people simply pretend that the situation does not exist. When the World Trade Towers collapsed, most Americans simply refused to believe suggestions that the attacks had been staged by parties working for the US Government itself. Americans were afraid to, even as news reports surfaced proving that the US Government had announced plans for the invasion of Afghanistan early in the year, plans into which the attacks on the World Trade Towers which angered the American people into support of the already-planned war fit entirely too conveniently. But so trapped are Americans by their belief in their own bravery that they will themselves to be blind to the evidence before their eyes, so that they can nod in agreement with the government while still imagining themselves to have courage, even as they avoid the one situation which most requires real courage; to stand up to the government's lies and deceptions. The vast majority of the American people, their own self-image dependant on continuing blindness to the government's deceptions, never question why Afghanistan would have done something so ****** as to attack the United States, and as a result, Americans find themselves in a war. Now the US Government has requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under Constitutional law, but powers the government is claiming they need to have to deal with the "terrorists". The American people, having already sold their souls to their self-delusions, are agreeing. The temporary powers recently conferred will be no more temporary in America than they were in Germany. The US Government knows they rule a nation of cowards. The government has had to spend the money to make the new war something cowards can fight. The government has decorated the troops with regalia to make them proud of themselves, further trapping them in their self-image. Talismans are added from orthodox religions and the occult to fill the soldiers with delusions of mystical strengths and an afterlife if they fall in battle. Finally, knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, the United States government has spent vast sums of money on wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, cruise missiles, and guided missiles, weapons that kill at a distance, so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they are doing. As I mentioned above, Hitler was TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year in 1938. Stalin was TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year for 1939 and 1942. Both of these men, and many others also celibrated by the media, were unimaginable monsters. The lesson from these facts is that it isn't easy to spot a genocidal tyrant when you live with one, especially one whom the press supports and promotes. Tyrants become obvious only when looking back, after what they have done becomes known. The German people did not stand up to Hitler because their media betrayed them, just as the American media is betraying the American people by willingly, voluntarily, even proudly, abandoning its traditional role as watchdog against government abuse. It is the very nature of power that it attracts the sort of people who should not have it. The United States, as the world's last superpower, is a prize that attracts men and women willing to do absolutely anything to win that power, and hence are also willing to do absolutely anything with that power once they have it. If one thinks about it long enough, one will realize that all tyrants, past and most especially present, MUST use deception on their population to initiate a war. No citizen of a modern industrialized nation will send their children off to die in a war to grab another nation's resources and assets, yet resources and assets are what all wars are fought over. The nation that wishes to initiate a war of conquest must create the illusion of an attack or a threat to start a war, and must always give their population of cowards an excuse never to question that carefully crafted illusion. It is naive, not to mention racist to assume that tyrants appear only in other nations and that somehow America is immune simply because we're Americans. America has escaped the clutches of a dictatorship thus far only through the efforts of those citizens who, unlike the Germans of the 1930s, have the moral courage to stand up and point out where the government is lying to the people. And unless more Americans are willing to have that kind of individual courage, then future generations may well look back on the American people with the same harshness of judgement with which we look back on the 1930s Germans.

The Terrorism Of Debt By Wanda Fish The genocide happening in the third world today is even more horrifying than the death camps in Nazi Germany. This time the objective is not to "cleanse the master race", but to make the masters wealthier. Imagine two scenes in different parts of the world. In our first scenario, three hooded gunmen raid an embassy. After a bloody gun battle, the terrorists take the Ambassador and other survivors as hostages. They demand the release of certain prisoners, or they will destroy the embassy and kill their hostages. In our second scenario, three grey-suited executives raid a country. The collapsing economy has left the government powerless to administer essential services. Failed crops, internal corruption, and natural disasters have taken their toll. People are desperate and dying. The IMF and World Bank executives outline the terms and conditions of the $50 billion loan. The terrorists in the first scene are eventually captured and executed for terrorist crimes. The bankers in the second scene are rewarded for their successful hijacking of the country's economy. Their corporations will be paid many times the loan over the next decade. The debt trap will cripple and imprison the country's future earning capacity. The executives receive bonuses and promotions that take their collective salary to a sum greater than the salaries of all the lowest paid workers in the country they had signed up to the debt trap. Over the past fifty years, the IMF and the World Bank have forced economic "development" that benefits the wealthy lenders and multinational corporations in the industrialized north and enslaves the world's poor majority in developing and third world countries. These international loan sharks have hijacked the economies of more than 60 countries. Loans, international assistance, and debt relief are given only when countries agree to conditions set by the Bank and Fund. Free trade, market liberalization, and privatisation of essential resources and services are demanded if "financial stability" is to be achieved. While crippling interest payments force cuts in health care, education and other social services for millions of people around the globe; the banks and corporations that "rescued" those countries report record profits. Humanitarian crises, like wars, have become lucrative business for those who have money to lend. Ten years ago, economist J. W. Smith warned, "The size of the debt trap can be controlled to claim all surplus production of a society, but if allowed to continue to grow, the magic of compound interest dictates it is unsustainable. The third world debt has been compounding at over 20 percent per year between 1973 and 1993, from $100 billion to $1.5 trillion [only $400 billion of the $1.5 trillion was actually borrowed money. The rest was runaway compound interest]. If Third World debt continues to compound at 20 percent per year, the $117 trillion debt will be reached in eighteen years and the $13.78 quadrillion debt in thirty-four years." More shocking than the magnitude of the figures (how does one fathom a quadrillion dollars?) is the chilling fact that the debt trap robs all the surplus production of an entire society. Debt does much more than forcing a country to work for nothing. This form of terrorism punishes the children, abandons the sick, and enslaves the adults. Every hour, one Filipino child dies because of debt-related poverty. Millions of children die every year in the Third World because they are too poor to buy food or medicines. Their families work extraordinary hours to earn less than $2 a day. Filthy slums with inhumane living conditions are prolific in most countries in the world, and are no longer exclusive to the third world. An estimated 100 million children live and work on the streets in the developing world, including 40 million in Latin America. Although many of these street children have some family links, they spend most of their lives on the streets begging, selling trinkets, shining shoes or washing cars to supplement their families' income. These children rarely go beyond a fourth-grade education. The 25 million children without families live in the streets with other street children. They sleep in abandoned buildings, under bridges, in doorways, or in public parks. These young victims of debt resort to petty theft and prostitution to survive. Many are addicted to inhalants which offer them an escape from reality and hunger pains -- in exchange for a host of physical and psychological problems, including hallucinations, pulmonary edema, kidney failure, and irreversible brain damage. These children are abused, even murdered, by the people who are supposed to protect them. "His name was Nahamán, a 13 year old in Guatemala. One night, while walking on the streets, he was kicked to death by four policemen who found him and decided to punish him. His crime? He was a street kid .... a subhuman without pedigree, a vexing reminder of Guatemala's malignant inclinations, the mortifying embodiment of a fallen society, a scapegoat. And, in death, a martyr. When we buried Nahamán on March 14th, 1990, his gravestone read: 'I only wanted to be a child, but they wouldn't let me'." While indebted countries struggle to pay mounting interest on debt loans, their hospitals, schools, water supply, electricity, and public transport deteriorate rapidly with reduced budgets. Disease, destitution and general lack of sanitation characterise many Third World cities. The children who do survive are unable to read and write as government budgets for health and education are cut to the bone as a result of debt service. In Niger, one of the poorest countries in the world, the government spends three times more on debt repayment than on health and education. Sub-Saharan Africa pays $10 billion every year in debt service. The countries of Sub-Saharan Africa are experiencing a pandemic with terrible consequences. In South Africa one in five people has HIV-AIDS, and in Zimbabwe one in four. One in seven Kenyans has the virus. In Botswana, the country with the highest rate of infection in the world, more than one-third of all adults are HIV positive. Twenty million people, or the entire population of Australia, have died in Sub-Saharan Africa since the pandemic began. If current trends continue, there will be than 40 million AIDS orphans in Africa by the end of this decade. Despite their extreme health crisis, 23 African countries spend more money on debt repayment than they spend on healthcare, which attracts only $2.5 billion, or a quarter of their debt service. This does not concern the banks that loaned the money. Their only objective is to make their rich clients even richer. The Kenyan widow dying of aids and leaving five orphans is not entered into the ledger books. However, the GM food that the starving widow and her children are forced to eat is entered into the ledger books. The humanitarian crisis has created a market for genetically modified food that the rest of the world didn't want. After all, beggars can't be choosey. By contrast, the wealthiest individuals in the world can choose or buy anything they want. At the top of the list is Bill Gates whose net worth in 2003 is forty billion dollars, or four times the annual debt service of sub-Saharan Africa and sixteen times the annual expenditure on health and education in those countries. The world's 497 billionaires in 2001 registered a combined wealth of $1.54 trillion, well over the combined gross national products of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa ($929.3 billion) or those of the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and North Africa ($1.34 trillion). These five hundred people also possess greater wealth than the combined incomes of the poorest half of humanity. Think about that fact for just a minute. Five hundred obnoxiously wealthy people have too much while nearly three billion people have nothing. Allow the full meaning to play out in your mind. While five hundred people have enough money to buy several countries, half of humanity struggles on less than $2 a day and can barely buy enough food to stay alive. It gets worse. Anything extra our third-world worker can earn will go into debt service payments. The banks profit, and the shareholders increase their wealth. The five hundred at the top of the tree have just made a profit out of poverty. After the G8 summit in Okinawa in 2000, President Obasanjo of Nigeria made this comment on Nigeria's debt: "All that we had borrowed up to 1985 or 1986 was around $5 billion and we have paid about $16 billion yet we are still being told that we owe about $28 billion. That $28 billion came about because of the injustice in the foreign creditors' interest rates. If you ask me what is the worst thing in the world, I will say it is compound interest." When President Obasanjo spoke out, the developing world was spending $13 on debt repayment for every one dollar it received in grants. While most people would be aware of the debt burden of the third world, they would be surprised to learn that the United States is also a heavily indebted country. The accumulated debt of the world's 'richest' country, the USA, is more than two trillion dollars. The exact amount owed by the whole of the developing world, including India, China and Brazil, is $2.5 trillion. This means that three hundred million Americans owe as much to the rest of the world as do five billion people in all the developing countries. The inequity doesn't stop there. While developing country economies struggle with debt service repayments totaling more than $300 billion per year, the US must only pay $20 billion to service an almost equivalent amount of debt. Jubilee, an international movement working to remove the third world debt, classifies the United States as a "heavily indebted prosperous country". If the money is not coming from the United States, where is it coming from? Who actually owns the money that was loaned in the first place? Some of it comes from illegal activities and is recognised as "dirty money". US and European banks launder between $500 billion and $1 trillion of dirty money each year, half of which enters the coffers of American banks. According to Catherine Austin Fitts, a contributing editor to "From the Wilderness", and formerly Assistant Secretary of Housing under George Bush, the four largest states for the importation of drugs are New York, Florida, Texas and California. She points out that the top four money-laundering states in the U.S. (good for between 100 and 260 billion per year in 1999) were New York, Florida, Texas and California. The connection goes on. Eighty per cent of all Presidential campaign funds also come from New York, Florida, Texas and California. While the World Bank and IMF are the main targets of activists working to remove third world debt, these two international banking institutions are influenced by various national banks, financial consultancies, and former politicians who manage the wealth of the world for their wealthy clients. The "Group of Thirty" established in 1978 is a private, nonprofit, international body composed of very senior representatives of the financial private, public and academic sectors. This select group of controllers aims "to deepen understanding of international economic and financial issues.and to examine the choices available to market practitioners and policymakers". The most powerful decision-makers and influencers in the financial world are members of this magic circle, which includes major national banks, universities, former politicians, and global consultancies. Despite the impressive collection of financial wizardry and power, The Group of Thirty and annual Economic Summits have failed to neutralise the terrorism of third world debt. Those who manage the global economic system are focused on the shareholder value of banks and corporations. The system is "successful" as long as it returns more wealth to the wealthy. Yet these financial experts are myopic about the future. The current level of debt worldwide is unsustainable and must eventually lead to the total collapse of a global economy that expects increased productivity from the poorest and unhealthiest workers on the planet. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, is built on the principle that human rights come from the "inherent dignity" of every person. The Declaration states, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." When the United Nations wrote that declaration 55 years ago, mankind was recovering from the trauma of a world war and the horrifying genocide of millions of innocent civilians. At that time it was necessary for mankind to ratify basic human rights and the principle of human dignity. The genocide happening in the third world today is even more horrifying than the death camps in Nazi Germany. This time the objective is not to "cleanse the master race", but to make the masters wealthier. The banks, in pursuit of more wealth and power, terrorise the third world. Those of us who live comfortable lives in developed countries are part of the crime. Our lifestyle, and our expectation that our savings will grow, feed the terrorism of debt. We might save a few dollars with the cheap imported clothes we wear, the coffee we drink, and the oil we put into the car; but those savings have made slaves of children and started wars. Our humanity has been hijacked by the dollar and the pursuit of wealth has become more important than human lives. How then do we wage war on the "terrorism of debt"? The Global Exchange website suggests ten actions that will democratize the global economy. These are not easy or quick fixes, and each action will require dedication and persistence. The following summary is a starting point. 1. The WTO (World Trade Organisation) must be replaced by a body that is fully democratic, transparent, and accountable to citizens of the entire world instead of to corporations. We must build support for trade policies that protect workers, human rights, and the environment. 2. Mandate corporate responsibility so that corporations have to prove their worth to society or be dismantled. Now many corporations advocate weakening of labor and environmental laws and their pursuit of free trade has delivered a global economy of sweatshops and environmental devastation. Corporations must be accountable to public needs, be open to public scrutiny, provide living wage jobs, abide by all environmental and labor regulations, and be subject to all laws governing them. Shareholder activismis an excellent tool for challenging corporate behavior. 3. Restructure the Global Financial Architecture. Currency speculation earns short term profits for wealthy investors but does nothing for long term development. A tax of ..1% to ..25% on currency transactions would be a disincentive for speculation, would not affect real capital investment, and could create a huge fund for building schools and medical clinics throughout the world. 4. Support the Jubilee action to cancel all third world debt, end structural adjustment, and defend a country's right to make economic decisions that will benefit the welfare of its people, not multinational corporations. 5. Prioritise human rights in trade agreements. Trade rules must comply with higher laws on human rights as well as economic and labor rights included in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. We should promote alternative trade agreements that include fair trade, debt cancellation, micro-credit, and local control over development policies. 6. Promote sustainable development, not consumption, as the key to the progress. International development should not be export-driven, but rather 7. Integrate women's needs in economic structuring. Family survival around the world depends on the economic independence of women. Economic policies need to take into account women's important role in nutrition, education, and development. 8. Build free and strong labor unions internationally and domestically. The union movement needs to be reborn. As corporations increase their multinational strength, unions are struggling to build bridges across borders and organize globally. Activists can support their efforts and ensure that free labor is an essential component of any 'free trade' agreements. 9. Develop community control over capital and promote socially responsible investment. Communities should be able to develop investment and development programs that suit local needs including passing anti-sweatshop purchasing restrictions, promoting local credit unions and local barter currency, and implementing investment policies for their city, church, and union that reflect social responsibility criteria. 10. Promote fair trade instead of free trade. We need to build networks of support and education for grassroots trade and trade in environmentally sustainable goods. We can promote labeling of goods such as Fair Trade Certified, organic, and sustainably harvested. It is time to reclaim our humanity and to "equalize" the economy so that we can fairly run, not unfairly ruin, our world. Economic theory will not feed, clothe or shelter us when we have used up the last poor worker. The current system is doomed to fail and will cost more millions of lives. If we start now, our grandchildren will be able to enjoy a world where human dignity is the most valued currency. Let's start to fix it today.

What troubles me is how he can come with a such half-assed idea like this at a time like this. There are more than million things wrongs with the continent now, and the guy talks about a single currency.

A communiqué attributed to Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the power blackout that happened in the U.S. last Thursday, saying that the brigades of Abu Fahes Al Masri had hit two main power plants supplying the East of the U.S., as well as major industrial cities in the U.S. and Canada, "its ally in the war against Islam (New York and Toronto) and their neighbors." The communiqué assured that the operation "was carried out on the orders of Osama bin Laden to hit the pillars of the U.S. economy," as "a realization of bin Laden's promise to offer the Iraqi people a present." The statement, which Al-Hayat obtained from the website of the International Islamic Media Center, didn't specify the way the alleged sabotage was carried out. The communiqué read: "let the criminal Bush and his gang know that the punishment is the result of the action, the soldiers of God cut the power on these cities, they darkened the lives of the Americans as these criminals blackened the lives of the Muslim people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. The Americans lived a black day they will never forget. They lived a day of terror and fear… a state of chaos and confusion where looting and pillaging rampaged the cities, just like the capital of the caliphate Baghdad, and Afghanistan and Palestine were. Let the American people take a sip from the same glass." It added: "we heard amazing statements made by the American and Canadian enemies which have nuclear physics universities and space agencies, that lightning hit and destroyed the two plants. And we are supposed to believe this nonsense. If the blackout occurred in one or two cities, their lie would have been credible. But the fact is that the blackout hit the entire East and part of Canada." The communiqué continued: "one of the benefits of this strike is that the U.S. will not live in peace until our conditions are met, such as releasing all the detainees including Sheikh Omar Abdulrahman, and getting out of the land of the Muslims, including Jerusalem and Kashmir." The authors of the communiqué said that the strikes aimed at "hitting the major pillar of the U.S. economy (the Stock Exchange)," considering that the operation was "a message to the UN, which is opposed to Islam, and is based in New York. It is a message to all the investors that the U.S. is no longer a safe country for their money, knowing that the U.S. economy greatly relies on the trust of the investor." They added: "seven major airports stopped working, which is a strike to airlines companies; nine nuclear reactors broke down, something that never happened before, and this is considered as a major economic hit for the nine reactors in the states of New York, New Jersey, Ohio and Michigan. Means of transportation broke down: trains, cars and trucks, which resulted in great losses. The Internet stopped, leading to a freeze in trade transactions. The international banks headquartered in New York closed, not to mention the great losses incurred by the insurance companies, and the massive deployment of the police and security forces." The communiqué mentioned that some economists said the blackout in the U.S. and Canada would cost the U.S. Treasury no less than ten billion U.S. dollars and in order to "break the hearts of U.S. officials, just know that the cost paid by the Moujahideen to sabotage the power plants was a mere seven thousand dollars. Die of sorrow!" The communiqué ended with: "we tell the Muslims that this is not the awaited strike, but it is called the war of skirmishes (to drain the enemy), and that the American snakes are enormous and need to be consumed and weakened to be destroyed. We tell the people of Afghanistan and Kashmir that the gift of Sheikh Osama bin Laden is on its way to the White House; then the gift of Al Aqsa, and do we know what is the gift of AlAqsa, where and when? The answer is what you are seeing!"

NEW YORK, Aug 18 (Reuters) - The 29-hour blackout that hit New York City on Thursday cost its economy about $1.05 billion or $36 million per hour, city officials said on Monday. The power outage kept about $800 million of economic activity from taking place and destroyed $250 million of perishable goods in the Big Apple, according to New York City Comptroller William Thompson. "That does not include lost tax revenues or overtime pay," said Michael Egbert, assistant press secretary for Thompson. City and state officials in other areas were generally not prepared on Monday to estimate the economic impact of the blackout. New York, the most populous city in the United States with 8 million people, lost power starting shortly after 4 p.m. (2000 GMT) on Thursday in cascading outages that left up to 50 million in Ontario and eight U.S. states in the dark. Cleveland and Detroit also lost power. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg estimated the city would end up spending about $10 million in overtime pay related to the blackout, according to the comptroller's office. The outage comes as New York City grapples with its worst fiscal crisis in 30 years, which has forced the city to cut spending by $3 billion and lay off 4,700 workers. While the blackout hit New York the hardest from an economic standpoint, Michigan was next in line, said Patrick Anderson, principal of Anderson Economic Group in Lansing, Michigan. He estimated that workers and investors in Michigan lost $691 million in earnings when the lights went off in Detroit and its suburbs. Those governments will be "forced to shoulder very expensive overtime costs to maintain order and provide some emergency services," Anderson added. He said the biggest cost to Michigan will be for expensive fixes to its power transmission system to avoid a repeat of last week's blackout. In general, the economic impact of the blackout will put a drag on tax collections of the state and local governments involved, said John Hallacy, a managing director at Merrill Lynch & Co., in written commentary. Overtime pay will also strain their budgets, he added. Rainy day funds and improving cash flow will help minimize the budgetary impact of the blackout, Hallacy said.

Ok. I think this guy is dreaming. Read it here.

Naa maad isku xishootid? Dadka hooyooyinkod waxba lagama sheego.

Originally posted by WISDOM786: NIN YAABAN WAS THAT MEANT TO BE A JOKE ,BECOUSE I DONT GET IT. HONESTLY. Sure, i dont blame you. There are alot of thing you dont get. That wasn't a joke, but a true fact. Xaaji is a Soomali, and its very popular among Somalis. And so is, Wardi. Pure Soomali names. Lets hope you get that now.

The most popular Soomali name is, Ina Xaaji wardi.

Jamaal, i think you can use MSN to send out text messaging. Dont know if it supports what you are asking (sending msn to multiple parties at once?). But you can send out SMS texts through MSN on someone on your list.

Jamaal, i think you can use MSN to send out text messaging. Dont know if it supports what you are asking (sending msn to multiple parties at once?). But you can send out SMS texts through MSN on someone on your list.

Originally posted by Samurai Warrior: So you consider the humanitarian mission of which intent was to rescue the walking skeletons in Baidoa and southern regions gone awry and turned into one-man hunt a victory. How unfortunate! Besides, that was not Somalia, but Aideed and his fellow clan supporters in dismal and frenzy daze and state of confusion run amok in Banadir (not representational of Somalia unless you are about to have an Einstein moment and come up with a new definition of what “Somalinimo” entails). Nonetheless, enjoy your feel of pride and proud in your freshly defined Somalinimo. And be careful what you wish for and whom you pick a fight with - us Britons do not take it kindly for being ridiculed. Cheers. How can you talk that way about our beloved motherland? Brother, Caydiid was fighting for Soomali midnimo, he was fighting (and gave his life) for the Somali people. Thanks to him, we not now Amerikaan client state. You are forgetting, or seem to believe whateva you hear in the Amerikaan media. Do you really think the Amerikaans were there to feed, poor starving soomalis? Or they had other motives, behind their involvement in the motherland? C'mon, you are very smart person think bro. They were there to exploit us, and to exploit our natural resources. They also wanted to have some sort of military base in Somaliya.

Originally posted by Continental Batchelor: What you need to do is to secure a few loose screws in your head before you try to secure a future habibti! :rolleyes: Wow CB. Take it easy on the brother. If he wants to have multiple wifes, thats totaly understandable. Nothing wrong with that. And besides, its our dhaqan.