From all the zillions of pages on the web I have tried to gather the best feeds available for you, enjoy it!
DISCLAIMER - BE CAREFUL READING THEM - WE ARE NOT RESPONSABLE OF WHAT THE AUTHORS SAY.
Burma’s military government has been officially dissolved and a nominally civilian government sworn in after decades of military rule. Military loyalists, however, still dominate the new government.
Burma’s state media Wednesday declared the military government officially dissolved and power turned over to what it is calling a civilian-led government.
Former Prime Minister Thein Sein was sworn in as president, along with a new administration chosen after a controversial election in November. The historic handover, though, is tempered by concerns that military rule will continue through proxies loyal to the military.
Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi was banned from participating and her National League for Democracy, the main opposition, was disbanded as a political party for boycotting the election.
Nyan Win, a spokesman for the NLD, said they accept the fact that there is a new government and are open to dialogue, but also will be watching closely for signs of military control.
"We are also wait and see about this. We are always concern about military control over the government or not. We don't know exactly. We will wait and see," said Win.
The military government touted the election as a move to democracy, but it was widely condemned as a sham.
The military-drafted constitution guaranteed it a quarter of all seats, and the military-supported party was elected by a landslide amid accusations of voter fraud and intimidation.
Many military officers resigned their posts to run in the election - including the new president, himself a former general - and are considered loyalists.
Smaller democracy parties were elected, but only to a handful of seats.
The role of senior General Than Shwe in the new government is still not clear and some analysts expect him to wield power behind the scenes.
The military government, known formally as the State Peace and Development Council, has ruled Burma since 1988, but the impoverished country has been under some form of military rule for half a century.
The NLD won Burma’s last election in 1990, but the military ignored the results and kept Aung San Suu Kyi locked up for most of the last two decades. She was released from house arrest last year, just days after the election.
The European Union will soon reform into ten member states. This will see Britain withdrawing or being kicked out of the present European Union or common market as it was previously known. This creation will all take shape quickly and at the head of this new union of European members will be Germany. This will however be quite a different Germany to the one we see today. Also we will see an Islam military alliance take shape. Among the nations of this new Islamic military alliance will be Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia. When Egypt and Ethiopia falls into the hands of radical Islamists the vital Red sea shipping route for oil will be controlled by this large Muslim military alliance.
What is happening in Ethiopia and how is Iran inflaming the Islamists?
Vicious fighting is presently boiling over on the borders of Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia. Somalia's feeble transitional government is being ousted by the Islam Iranian -backed Al-shabaab terrorist militia, while Ethiopian forces battle their way to the Somali border to ward off the Islamic extremists.
One of the prominent officials of Al-Shabaab made a public announcement at a gathering convincing Muslims in both Kenya and Ethiopia to revolt against their governments. Sheikh Mahad Omar Abdikarim was quoted as saying that the. "oppressed Muslims of Kenya and Ethiopia need to liberate themselves from Christian domination"
The recent outbreak of anti-Christian hostility has brought about the displacement of 4,000 Christians within the Jimma Zone of Ethiopia. The brutal Muslim attacks started a day before the influential al-shabaab official proclaimed his orders. It all started when a local Muslim accused a Christian of defiling the Koran, hence resulting to the gruesome burning of Fifty-nine churches and twenty eight homes during the attack.
Ethiopian authorities sent out security troops but reports said that they were outnumbered by the Islamist invaders. The 2007 census reveals a statistic of forty four per cent of the population belongs to the Ethiopian Orthodox church, while 34 percent are Sunni Muslim. The rest are scattered to several protestant Christian denominations. As is usual in these type of conflicts there will be a refugee crisis as the christian population of Ethiopia clamours to escape. More than likely these refugees will head towards European Union countries instead of the nearby larger African countries.
The conflicts between the al-shabaab terrorists and the Ethiopian troops in Somalia plus the Muslim attacks on churches across the western Ethiopia have created havoc within and outside the state. The current uproar that has just started out as a Somali civil war might soon trigger an interstate war between the Islam-controlled Somalia and its western opponent.
Somalia's Islamic rebellion, stated in a UN report, is said to be a clear display of their support for the Iranian cause when they sent out 720 of their best-skilled fighters to Lebanon in the summer of 2006 to aid in overthrowing the Israeli forces. As a return for their assistance, the al-shabaab's parent organization, the Islamic Courts Union, received three consignments of arms, ammunition and medical supplies from Iran. To further show their gratitude, Iranian proxy Hezbollah provided Somali rebels with advanced training by sending five military consultants to Somalia.
The support of Al-shabaab terrorist troops to Iran provided the latter with more than extra soldiers in its battle against Israel. The objective of Iran to have power over the flow of oil through the red sea and the Mediterranean sea requires them to also be in control of both the Southern entrance to the red sea and the Mediterranean sea. The authority to implement a trade restriction would be a powerful weapon for Iran and Islam in their battle against the European Union and the rest of the western world. The domination of Iran over Somalia and Eritrea cannot be completed unless the Ethiopian resistance is totally annihilated. Hence, the Islam al-shabaab terrorist militia's battle against Ethiopia is very important.
If you want to understand why the radical Islam is so eager for an alliance or influence over these two countries (including Egypt and Tunisia), look at a good map of the Middle East with a focus on the European Union, Mediterranean Sea and in particular, the Red Sea and all will become clear. Indeed, these two seas cover the most significant trade route in the whole world!
Radical Islam will take control of Ethiopia and will also indisputably also take authority over the small areas of Eritrea and Djibouti on the coastline of the red sea. These areas are also noted to have only just become sovereign from Ethiopia.
Prophecy reveals that a restructured 10 nation European union led by Germany will be ready to confront a Muslim alliance of nations that include Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya and others. This will set off a devastating chain of events that will affect us all.
Find out more about this Devastating Prophecy here european union
In recent comments during a trip to Israel, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates discussed the escalating situation in Syria saying:
I’ve just come from Egypt, where the Egyptian army stood on the sidelines and allowed people to demonstrate and in fact empowered a revolution. The Syrians might take a lesson from that.
…
I would say that what the Syrian government is confronting is in fact the same challenge that faces so many governments across the region, and that is the unmet political and economic grievances of their people.
On the heels of the Libyan invasion, it’s becoming clear that events transpiring in the middle east for the last three months may not be as they seem in the mainstream. Rising food prices and a hungry populace have been suggested as one of the key triggers for what was followed by several incidents of self immolation and then wide-spread civil unrest. The state sponsored media has provided ample reason for the protests and riots breaking out in a dozen countries, focusing on the peoples’ yearning for democracy and change as the primary motivator.
It’s been parroted for weeks that mid-east leaders in countries like Egypt, Yemen, Libya and now Syria, are dictators and a threat to their people, as well as the United States. On February 4th, 2011, President Obama, speaking on the protests in Egypt, essentially gave a public , but cloaked decree to President Mubarak, recommending he resign:
“What I recommend to him is, he needs to consult with the people around him in his administration. He needs to listen to what was voiced by the Egyptian people and make judgments about the way forward that is orderly, but it must be meaningful and serious.”
…
“The key question that he must ask for himself is, ‘How do I leave a legacy in which Egypt is able through this transformative period?’ My hope is that he eventually will make the right decision.”
While not aggressively calling for Mubarak’s resignation, Mr. Obama’s words were interpreted by US and Egyptian media as exactly that. Even President Mubarak understood what was happening, and began a partial hand over of power to his newly appointed Vice President. A few days later, Mubarak declared his refusal to resign. When the riots broke out, he likely believed that the US would fully support the Egyptian government. After all, they had been our “friends” for decades. The official policy and attitude of the United States towards Egypt was clearly defined by President Bush in January of 2008, when the President visited with Mr. Mubarak in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt:
It’s an important stop for me because the United States has a longstanding friendship with Egypt. It’s important for the people of Egypt to understand our nation respects you, respects your history, respects your traditions and respects your culture. Our friendship is strong. It’s a cornerstone of — one of the main cornerstones of our policy in this region, and it’s based on our shared commitment to peace, security and prosperity.
…
I appreciate very much the long and proud tradition that you’ve had for a vibrant civil society. I appreciate the fact that women play an important role in your society, Mr. President. I do so because not only I’m a proud father of two young professional women, I also know how important it is for any vibrant society to have women involved in constructive and powerful ways. And I appreciate the example that your nation is setting.
Progress toward greater political openness is being led by the Egyptians themselves, by pioneering journalists — some of whom even may be here — bloggers, or judges insisting on independence, or other strong civic and religious leaders who love their country and are determined to build a democratic future.
Here’s a nation once described by President Bush as a longstanding friend and an example of political openness, women’s rights, and vibrant civil society, only to be declared a dictatorship by Western media almost literally overnight.
Similar themes have been playing out throughout the middle east, including Tunisia, Algeria, Iraq, Iran, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Libya and Syria.
With the exception of Iran, no one in the White House or mainstream media really had any derogatory assessments of these other countries. And now, without warning, their people desire democratic governments? To be sure, the people of these countries have every right to protest, but something just isn’t right when you consider how the storyline has been developed.
After the perceptive buildup of dictatorial, power hungry leadership in the middle east, it was only a matter of time before an example needed to be set. Enter Gaddafi.
Libya, undergoing protests, riots and near civil war, seemed to be headed in the direction of Egypt, with an eventual voluntary transfer of power. Unlike Mubarak, however, Gaddafi rejected the West’s call for his military to stand down and pursued would-be rebels, going so far as to say they would be given “no mercy” if they continued their revolution.
What happened next makes inquiring minds wonder if Egypt’s President Mubarak wasn’t privately “asked” by elements of Western governments that he should pull back his military and resign, or end up hiding in a hole like Saddam Hussein.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates may have just given the Syrians the same option. If the Syrians don’t take it seriously, or come to the conclusion that Mr. Gates is bluffing, they may very well host the next Libya-style no fly zone.
Reasons provided by the US and coalition forces for the incursion into Libya is that the West is protecting innocent people from slaughter – a storyline that only sheep of state sponsored television could believe considering that the government of Bahrain allowed hundreds of Saudi troops to help quell the rebellion that threatened their monarchy. Government sponsored police forces are authorized to eliminate anyone who threatens the government, including unarmed protesters, many of who were shot in drive by executions:
The US and Western coalitions pick and choose which innocent civilians are worthy of saving, and many have suggested that this is due to one specific reason. If you haven’t guessed, it’s closely related to the oil and gas reserves in the region, but according to Conn Hallinan, it’s a much broader strategy that boils down to regional energy control. The Saudis, being close allies of the US (for today, at least) have a pass to cleanse protesters who would threaten stability. Libya, of course, is lead by a dictator, thus he has to go – just like the Syrian leadership.
Among the many inconsistencies with what’s playing out in the middle east is the question of what our President and Secretary of Defense would ask our own military to do if political protests, riots and violence erupted here in the US. Both seem to suggest that the leaders of these middle eastern countries, as well as their law enforcement and military apparatuses, should stand aside. Would the President of the United States, if faced with riots, molotov cocktails, and gun fire outside of the Capitol building or White House allow the military to “empower a revolution driven by unmet political and economic grievances” of the people?
Estimates suggest that Mubarak resigned amid as many as 2 million protesters in the streets. This is about 3% of Egypt’s population.
If the United States saw similar turnouts at Federal and State government buildings, would our leadership resign without a fight as well? Are we to believe that the same logic being used to compel dictators in the middle east to step down would be applied domestically if the people, in a public show of protest, deemed our government to be tyrannical and it’s leaders dictators? Moreover, does this mean that any such civil disobedience, riots, and gunfire would be ignored by military and law enforcement, who would be ordered to, as Mr. Gates suggested to Syria, stand on the sidelines?
We’d like to believe it is that easy, except we live in a little place we like to call reality.
Ready to eat meals are direct From US Govt Contractor - 12 Meals Per Case - Various And Assorted Types. Includes Entree, Dessert, Beverage, Condiments Etc. Dimensions 16" x 10" x 11". Does Not Contain Chemical Heaters. Great For Camping Trips.
Ready to eat meals are direct From US Govt Contractor - 12 Meals Per Case - Various And Assorted Types. Includes Entree, Dessert, Beverage, Condiments Etc. Dimensions 16" x 10" x 11". Does Not Contain Chemical Heaters. Great For Camping Trips.
In December of 2007, while then Senator Obama was running for the Office of the President, Boston.com sat down with the candidate for a Q & A session.
The question from interviewer Charlie Savage asked Mr. Obama about Presidential authority to initiate a military attack under the Constitution:
In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
Mr. Obama, at one time a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, responded with a clear and concise view on the matter:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
While President Obama and his counterpart in the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron, believe that the military action in Libya has been authorized, and is legitimate and legal, it is only legal with respect to United Nations’ bylaws and treaties.
The United States, however, requires the approval of Congress to engage in war, as stated by Mr. Obama in December of 2007. While the actions of Libya’s long-time leadership may be perceived abhorrent and morally unjust, it does not justify US involvement – especially unilateral decision making, with respect to US law, on the part of the President.
The United States was not in danger because of Libya’s actions against its people. There was no imminent threat.
Regardless of what the United Nations has or has not authorized, the People of the United States, by law, require Congressional approval for such an action.
This is a prime example of why our Founders were adamant about the system of checks and balances.
Reference Sources: Activist Post, What Really Happened, Boston.com
19 March 2011: And so it begins. With the approval and acquiescence of the world governing body, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 1973 as its casus belli for the enforcement of UNSC Resolution 1970. Within 48 hours of the adoption of this resolution the emergent superpower of Bible prophecy, the European Union, took the lead in declaring a de facto state of war exists against an Islamic sovereign state in the throes of a civil war. Today, for the first time, the armed forces of the European Union went to war against the government of Libya. And where is America, formerly the military superpower and leader of the so-called free world? In a supporting role! And the apparent leader of the European Union's first military adventure outside of Europe's borders - the French-Hungarian/Greek-Jewish President of France, Nicholas Paul Stephane Sarkozy de Nagy-Bosca. I believe we are all witnesses to a benchmark event of profound eschatological implications and from which there will be no turning back. September 11, 2001 was a day that changed America forever. March 19, 2011, eight years to the day from the start of the American-led conquest of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist Iraq, is a day that will prove to be one which changes our world forever. Update: The NATO base in Naples, Italy, AFSOUTH or Armed Forces South, is the headquarters of this European-led military operation in Libya, and the primary British aviation contribution will be controlled from the Joint Forces Air Component (JFAC) located at Akrotiri, Cyprus. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar have pledged approximately 30 combat aircraft to be placed under European command. The name given to the war against the Libyan regime is "Operation Odyssey Dawn." All war is based upon deception, and this war will be no exception. The truth behind this war is going to be defended by a bodyguard of lies. So I guess it goes without saying that the lies are being told in advance. One such lie is, "no ground troops." There will have to be boots on the ground in Libya; it is unavoidable in order to ensure the ill-defined mission objectives that do exist are met.
The tide of Libya’s revolt-turned-civil-war has turned against the rebels. Internationally-isolated dictator Moammar Gaddafi’s forces are retaking town after town in rebel-held areas of Libya and are now advancing on Benghazi, the country’s second largest city, where the youth-led rebellion began last month.
Badly outgunned and facing possible defeat, the rebels are asking, “Where is the West? How are they helping? What are they doing?” In Benghazi, the rebels’ newly-formed National Council has repeatedly called on the international community to enforce a no-fly zone to limit the regime’s ability to assault rebel positions from the air and slow the flow of pro-Gaddafi foreign mercenaries into Libya.
The United States and its NATO allies are weighing their options. While NATO has deployed spy planes to monitor the violence in Libya, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has stressed the limits of what a no-fly zone could achieve (protection against jets, but not against equally if not more lethal helicopters and tanks) and what it would actually entail on the part of the intervening parties (destroying Gaddafi’s air defenses; in other words, fighting an air war).
The European Union has been equally cautious so far. Its 27 member states are divided on what, if anything, to do about the violence in Libya. Powerful member states such as Germany have expressed intense skepticism about the wisdom of any military action against Gaddafi, but have stopped short of ruling out the possibility.
At what point might the US or NATO decide to carry out a military intervention in Libya? My guess is, when we see a combination of at least two of the following conditions:
– Gaddafi’s forces carry out a massacre large enough to shock the global conscience –something akin to a Libyan Srebrenica, or a re-enactment of the fall of Mazar Sharif to the Taliban in 1998.– The Arab League endorses outside military intervention.– The UN Security Council authorizes an intervention.– The Europeans agree to participate in a multilateral effort against the Libyan regime.
Libya’s rebels want Western air power on their side, but the US and its allies, bruised by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, are in no hurry to join another war.
The U.S. spends a FORTUNE every year for defense but according to the Stockholm International Peace Research, India is the world’s largest importer of of weapons. China is #2.
On an absolute basis, the U.S. spends more than anybody but we manufacturer most of what we need. Other countries have to import weapons, generally from Russia and/or the U.S.
Roberto Maroni, Italy's Minister of Interior, said that "military intervention in Libya would mean a Third World War," apparently alluding to reports of posturing by the the United States, Great Britain, and NATO. Interviewed by the La Padania newspaper, Maroni spoke in the March 8 report on policy towards the simmering rebellions in the Maghreb region, including Libya and Tunisia. Said the minister, "A strong military action, in particular on the part of the US, would do nothing more than coalesce the other Arab states and the consequences would be devastating." Continues here
Western cuts and swiftly rising defence spending in emerging economies are redrawing the global strategic map, a leading think-tank said on Tuesday, with the danger of conflicts between states also rising.
In its annual Global Military Balance report, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said the shift in economic power was already beginning to have a real military effect and closing any strategic gap.
“Western states’ defence budgets are under pressure and their military procurement is constrained,” said IISS director general John Chipman. “But in other regions – notably Asia and the Middle East – military spending and arms acquisitions are booming. There is persuasive evidence that a global redistribution of military power is under way.”
Asian Pacific nations particularly China were increasing defence spending by double digits annually, he said, with growing evidence Western states were losing their technological edge in areas such as stealth technology and cyber warfare.
Most estimates suggest Washington still accounts for roughly half of all global defence spending each year, much of it spent on conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Estimates of Chinese defence spending vary wildly, with many analysts suspecting it dramatically underreports.
“HALF A GENERATION”
According to the report, the United States spent $693 billion on defence in 2010 – 4.7 percent of its GDP – compared to China’s $76 billion (1.3 percent/GDP) and Britain’s 57 billion dollars (2.5 percent/GDP).
Speaking to Reuters after the report launch, Chipman said if current trends were continued it would still take 15-20 years for China to achieve military parity with the U.S.
“We’re talking about half a generation,” he said. “The United States has always said it would never let another power get to parity so in the next few years it is going to have to make some very significant decisions on what it does.”
In the shorter term, he said much of the equipment China was aiming to acquire such as the submarines and anti-ship missiles was designed to dent the dominance of U.S. aircraft carriers in nearby waters particularly the Taiwan Strait.
Beijing’s military growth was itself driving other nearby Asian powers to ramp up their own purchases, he said, while worries over Iran coupled with strong oil revenues were driving similarly rapid expansion in Gulf military forces.
It was too soon to say whether the rash of uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East would prompt authoritarian rulers to focus more on internal security threats, he said.
Exchanges of fire along the borders of Thailand and Cambodia as well as between North and South Korea showed that the risk of local state-on-state war was back on the map after a decade of focus on more fringe threats such as militancy, he said.
“It had become conventional wisdom bordering on cliche that interstate conflict was a thing of the past and now that’s being called into question,” he said.
Equipped with a full-tang, matte-finished, black stainless-steel tanto blade, this versatile and practical military-style tanto knife is a terrific choice for knife enthusiasts. The knife also includes a thick green cord-wrapped handle that allows for a secure and comfortable grip, along with a pommel lanyard that keeps your blade handy at all times. Other features include a durable green nylon belt sheath with a Velcro securing strap, a magnesium alloy fire starter, and a total length of 7-1/2 inches.
The product featured here is the 1000 foot spool of OD Green parachute cord, direct from the manufacturer. This is the exact type of cord that is sold to the US Military for non-critical missions, where reliability is a must. The paracord advertised here is not a cheap imitation, it is the real thing!
Because individual strands of 550 paracord can be easily removed and combined into your own configurations, this small rope can be put to a wide variety of survival uses. As a general purpose utility cord 550 can be used for:
Ridgelines for Tarps Securing Equipment Shoelaces Hanging Food from Bears Vehicle Tie Downs Sewing Fabric Repairing Equipment Making a Fire Bow Fishing Line Paracord String for a Bow Making a Shelter Fish Gill Nets Fishing Line Animal Snares Clothes Lines Paracord Lanyards Anchor Line Binding Twine Animal Restraints Tooth Floss Splints Tourniquet Paracord Braiding Other Paracord Crafts
From seting up a tarp to paracord braiding, no survival kit is complete without a long hank of paracord. This strong cordage is the survival experts friend.
Ready to eat meals are direct From US Govt Contractor - 12 Meals Per Case - Various And Assorted Types. Includes Entree, Dessert, Beverage, Condiments Etc. Dimensions 16" x 10" x 11". Does Not Contain Chemical Heaters. Great For Camping Trips.
Equipped with a full-tang, matte-finished, black stainless-steel tanto blade, this versatile and practical military-style tanto knife is a terrific choice for knife enthusiasts. The knife also includes a thick green cord-wrapped handle that allows for a secure and comfortable grip, along with a pommel lanyard that keeps your blade handy at all times. Other features include a durable green nylon belt sheath with a Velcro securing strap, a magnesium alloy fire starter, and a total length of 7-1/2 inches.
The product featured here is the 1000 foot spool of OD Green parachute cord, direct from the manufacturer. This is the exact type of cord that is sold to the US Military for non-critical missions, where reliability is a must. The paracord advertised here is not a cheap imitation, it is the real thing!