Tuesday, 20 February 2018

1,455,590 Iraqis have been slaughtered by USA since the 2003 American invasion of Iraq

Iraq Deaths
The number is shocking and sobering. It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.
Remind visitors to your site of the awful human costs of continued war by posting the Iraqi Death Estimator on your website. You can use the code in the box below.
Sign the petition telling Congress that about a million Iraqis have likely been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Help us expose to Congress the true costs of war.
A study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The death counter provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count. (See the complete explanation.)
The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in January 2008. Opinion Research Business estimated that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 was 1,033,000.
This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it. You can use the simple HTML code above to post the counter to your website to help spread the word.
Add your name to the petition telling Congress that about a million Iraqis have likely been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
Help us continue this important work with a tax-deductible contribution.
See the list of some folks we know have posted the counter.

1,455,590 Iraqis have been slaughtered by USA since the 2003 invasion and counting

Iraq Deaths

The number is shocking and sobering. It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on a scientific study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.
Remind visitors to your site of the awful human costs of continued war by posting the Iraqi Death Estimator on your website. You can use the code in the box below.
Iraq Deaths Estimator
Sign the petition telling Congress that about a million Iraqis have likely been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Help us expose to Congress the true costs of war.
A study, published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The death counter provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count. (See the complete explanation.)
The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in January 2008. Opinion Research Business estimated that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 was 1,033,000.
This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it. You can use the simple HTML code above to post the counter to your website to help spread the word.
Add your name to the petition telling Congress that about a million Iraqis have likely been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
Help us continue this important work with a tax-deductible contribution.
See the list of some folks we know have posted the counter.

Monday, 22 January 2018

Marines Want to 'Pull Back' From Middle East as Russia, Pacific Loom

Military.com 20 Dec 2017 By Hope Hodge Seck

VAERNES GARRISON, NORWAY -- As the U.S. nears the completion of nearly two decades of combat in the Middle East, the commandant of the Marine Corps said the service is looking beyond the region and working to focus more on other parts of the world where new threats are emerging.
During a brief visit to the new Marine Corps rotational force in Norway as part of a multi-country Christmas tour of deployed Marine units, Gen. Robert Neller held a town hall forum and took questions from a handful of Marines from the 300-troop rotation. Addressing a question about where the Marine Corps saw itself fighting in the near future, Neller spoke plainly.
"I think probably the focus, the intended focus is not on the Middle East," Neller said. "The focus is more on the Pacific and Russia."
The commandant acknowledged that who and where to fight is not always a unilateral choice.
"The problem is, we may not be interested in the Middle East, but they seem to be fascinated with us," he said. "And as long as there are groups there that threaten the United States, there will have to be some presence."
The current Marine Corps deployed presence in the Middle East is robust.
More than 450 Marines are now deployed to Afghanistan in advisory and training capacities as local troops continue to battle the Taliban. Hundreds more are in Iraq, staffing two ground bases supporting the fight against ISIS and reinforcing the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. An artillery detachment in Syria recently departed for home after being credited with helping to achieve victory in the assault on the self-proclaimed ISIS caliphate in Raqqa.
And elsewhere in the Middle East, elements of the Marines' crisis response force for the region are distributed in various countries, ready to respond to a regional crisis, provide aid to an embassy, or rescue a downed aircraft.
Traditionally, multiple stops on Neller's annual Christmas visit are to deployed Marine units in the Middle East.
Neller asked the enlisted Marine who asked the question how old he was when the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks occurred. Eight, the Marine responded.
"If you look at the security situation in that part of the world, is it any better than it was at 9/11?" Neller said. "We've been there for 17 years next September. So we keep doing the same thing, getting the same result, and we're still unhappy. Maybe we need to change something."
He predicted "a slight pullback" from the Middle East in favour of presence in and focus on the Pacific and Eastern Europe, where North Korea and Russia pose regional and global threats.
The Pacific, in particular, houses three of the five threats in the Pentagon's "4+1" framework, Neller said: North Korea, China, and global terrorism. (The other two threats are Russia and Iran).
"So I believe we'll turn our attention there," Neller said. "We're going back to the Pacific."
-- Hope Hodge Seck can be reached at hope.seck@military.com. Follow her on Twitter at @HopeSeck.

Army Chief Wants Robotic Vehicles, AI for Future Battles

Military.com 17 Jan 2018 By Matthew Cox

The U.S. Army's chief of staff said Wednesday the service's future combat vehicles and helicopters will need to serve in both manned and unmanned roles to meet commanders' needs.
Gen. Mark Milley, speaking at an Association of the United States Army's Institute of Land Warfare breakfast, fleshed out his vision for an Army of the future that depends on robotics, artificial intelligence and other cutting-edge technologies that do not yet exist.
A large part of the success the service enjoyed in the 1991 Gulf War and more recent conflicts, he said, was the result of the focused modernization vision of leaders in the 1970s that created the Army's "big five" -- the Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, Apache attack helicopter, Black Hawk helicopter, and the Patriot air defence missile system.
The service now faces a similar challenge of modernizing its major weapon systems that are quickly becoming obsolete, Milley said.
"If we, the United States military, do not recognize the need for change, and if we do not adapt and pivot to that change then, in my mind, that will be a grave strategic mistake," he said.
For months, Milley has been pushing his modernization strategy, which prioritizes long-range precision fires, next-generation combat vehicles, future vertical lift, sophisticated command network and soldier lethality.
"I am not interested in a linear progression into the future that will end up in defeat on a future battlefield," said Milley, describing the mistake of depending on incremental improvements to existing combat platforms.
"We are talking about 10X capabilities that don't physically exist in the real world right this minute, but they will," he added.
More than a decade ago, Army leaders touted the need for "leap-ahead" technology in the service's Future Combat Systems effort -- a multiyear, multibillion-dollar program that consisted of 14 lightweight manned and unmanned systems tied together by an extensive communications and information network.
But the technology FCS depended on simply did not exist. The Army spent billions on FCS, only to see it fail when then-Defence Secretary Robert Gates killed the 27-ton Manned Ground Vehicles portion of FCS in the 2010 budget while criticizing the advanced design as ill-suited to survive current battlefield threats.
After the demise of FCS, Army officials quickly took aim at the Ground Combat Vehicle, an effort to replace the Bradley fighting vehicle with a technologically advanced fighting vehicle that would last far into the future.
Five years later, Congress cut most of the funding for the overweight, over-budget vehicle program in the face of mandatory budget cuts under sequestration.
Milley acknowledges the failures of FCS but maintains that the Army must embrace emerging technologies such as robotics and artificial intelligence if the service wants to keep pace with its adversaries.
"Robotics is here; it is real," he said. "We are talking about vehicles that are both manned and unmanned ... every vehicle is going to have the capability to be robotic."
Within 10 to 15 years, ground forces are going to have robotic vehicles for ground and air operations, Milley said.
"So If the commander on the ground can make an evaluation of his mission, enemy, terrain, time and troops available, and he can estimate the situation, he can make a determination as to whether he wants this assault to be manned or unmanned," he said. "Does he want to attack Hill 101 with robots or does he want to do it with manned vehicles?"
Artificial intelligence is another example of a key emerging technology that the Army must recognize, Milley said.
"Whether we like it or not, artificial intelligence is coming," he said. "I am willing to bet on it with programs and money."
In terms of decision-making, "we want capabilities in the network that are taking advantage of significant advances in information technology to include artificial intelligence", Milley said.
"I don't know if artificial intelligence is going to mean robots and machines replace humanity ... but I do know the quantum computing and some of the IT technologies that are out there today are so significant and can help you [with] rapid decision-making in complex decentralized environments -- that if we don't take advantage of that in things like the network -- then we would be fools because others are moving out quickly on that," he said.
-- Matthew Cox can be reached at matthew.cox@military.com.

Sunday, 21 January 2018

How Obama Attempted to Destroy the President of the United States

A former federal prosecutor says the truth is starting to seep out about the Obama Administration’s “brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton” and “frame an incoming president with a false Russian conspiracy,” according to an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Joe diGenova, a former federal prosecutor, connects the dots on former Obama administration Justice Department and FBI officials who may have “violated the law, perhaps committed crimes” to politicize law enforcement and surveillance against political opponents.
He says former FBI Director James Comey conducted a fake criminal investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as they “followed none of the regular rules, gave her every break in the book, immunized all kinds of people, allowed the destruction of evidence, with no grand jury, no subpoenas, no search warrants. That’s not an investigation. That’s a Potemkin village. It’s a farce.”
DiGenova condemned the FBI for working so closely with the controversial Fusion GPS, a political hit squad paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to create and spread the discredited Steele dossier about President Donald Trump. Without a justifiable law enforcement or national security reason, he says, the FBI “created false facts so that they could get surveillance warrants. Those are all crimes.” He adds, using official FISA-702 “queries” and surveillance was done “to create a false case against a candidate, and then a president.”
In this highly detailed video interview, he holds up an unreported April 2017 99-page FISA court opinion that “describes systematic and on-going violations of the law [by the FBI and their contractors using unauthorized disclosures of raw intelligence on Americans]. This is stunning stuff.”
DiGenova thinks Fusion GPS and Crowdstrike, the DNC’s private security firm, were among the redacted contractors of the FBI.
House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, who knows who the redacted contractors were, may release more information.
Was Fusion GPS pitching and funding journalists to run smear and propaganda campaigns for the Democrats? DiGenova says journalists were definitely paid by Fusion GPS. If it is true, he says, “it’s the complete antithesis of American journalism and the first amendment.”
“Law enforcement is being corrupted and media is being bought,” portends badly he says. Noting the elite media’s supposed outrage about governmental power and institutions during Watergate, diGenova says “the only thing the American journalism community seems to care about now is destroying Donald Trump.”
In the video interview, diGenova discusses the heroism of NSA Admiral Mike Rogers who briefed Trump when he was president-elect, on Nov. 17, 2016 about the controversial governmental surveillance. This resulted, he says, in Trump’s presidential transition being moving out of Trump Tower to Bedminster, N.J., until it could be debugged.
The litigator also discusses the Uranium One scandal, the “tainted” Mueller special counsel investigation and the heroism of Nunes, who is under intense pressure from a united Democrat front.
DiGenova has no doubt that if Democrats gain control in November, there will be an effort to impeach Trump. The Democrats are trying to delay any efforts by Republicans to find the truth.
“It’s important for the House to complete its work now,” he says.
Videographer Sean Moody is credited with the video work for this piece.
Mrs. Thomas does not necessarily support or endorse the products, services or positions promoted in any advertisement contained herein, and does not have control over or receive compensation from any advertiser.

North Korea's Samjiyon Band

Saturday, 20 January 2018

A Bombshell House Intelligence Report Exposing Extensive FISA Abuse Could Lead to the Removal of Senior Government Officials

A review of a classified document outlining what is described as extensive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse was made available to all House members Thursday and the revelations could lead to the removal of senior officials in the FBI and Department of Justice, several sources with knowledge of the document stated. These sources say the report is “explosive,” stating they would not be surprised if it leads to the end of Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel Investigation into President Trump and his associates.

The House Intelligence Committee passed the motion along party lines Thursday to make the classified report alleging extensive ‘FISA Abuse’ related to the controversial dossier available to all House members. The report contains information regarding the dossier that alleges President Trump and members of his team colluded with the Russians in the 2016 presidential election. Some members of the House viewed the document in a secure room Thursday.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., offered the motion on Thursday to make the Republican majority-authored report available to the members.
“The document shows a troubling course of conduct and we need to make the document available so the public can see it,” said a senior government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the document. “Once the public sees it, we can hold the people involved accountable in a number of ways.”
The government official said that after reading the document “some of these people should no longer be in the government.”
The document also apparently outlines “several problematic” issues with how FISA warrants were “packaged, and used” state several sources with knowledge of the report.
Over the past year, whistle-blowers in the law enforcement and intelligence community have revealed to Congress what they believe to be extensive abuse with regard to FISA surveillance, as previously reported. 
The dossier was used in part as evidence for a warrant to surveil members of the Trump campaign, according to a story published this month. Former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier in 2016, was hired by embattled research firm Fusion GPS. The firm’s founder is Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who has already testified before Congress in relation to the dossier. In October, The Washington Post revealed for the first time that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC that financed Fusion GPS.
Congressional members are hopeful that the classified information will be declassified and released to the public.
“We probably will get this stuff released by the end of the month,” stated a congressional member, who asked not to be named.
But the government official, who viewed the document said
“it will be tough for a lot of people to see this and especially the media, which has been attempting to de-emphasize the dossier. It’s going to punch a hole in their collusion narrative.”
The House vote to make the report available to all members is a major step in exposing the long-guarded classified documents obtained by the House Intelligence Committee over the past year. It allows members of the House to view the report and could quickly lead to a motion to declassify the report for the public, numerous House members told this reporter.
“It’s a (House Intelligence) committee document that deals with the assessment on the Department of Justice, FBI and the oversight work that is being conducted by the committee,” said a congressional source, which spoke on condition that they not be named.
Sara Carter is an award-winning National Security/War Correspondent. 
Featured image is from the author.
The original source of this article is Sara A. Carter
Copyright © Sara CarterSara A. Carter, 2018

Imperial Disaster

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently announced that the U.S. occupation of Syria would continue until three conditions are met:

§  ISIS must be destroyed
§  Assad must go
§  Refugees must be returned to Syria

His words are an obscenity. They are also a smokescreen to disguise actual realities and imperial intentions. Not only is the U.S. occupation criminal according to Nuremberg Principles, but the diktats themselves are either unattainable or redundant and therefore doomed to fail – which is the intent.
The first demand, that ISIS must be destroyed is intentionally unattainable since ISIS are U.S. assets, and so they will be there as long as the U.S. is there. The U.S. has no intention of eliminating its foremost pretext for waging war against humanity.
Leading Australian academic expert on the Middle East, Jeremy Salt, explains in these words what we should already know:
The war on Syria goes on. It is not over as many have said: but for outside intervention, it never would have started. Even though the ISIS has been virtually destroyed in Syria, thus fulfilling the rationale for its forces being there, the US is refusing to leave. It has been playing a double game, declaring war on the ISIS while clandestinely cooperating with it in various ways. It wanted a Salafist principality in eastern Syria and the Islamic State gave it one. ISIS fighters criss-crossed the Syrian Desert, towards Mosul and Palmyra, without the US intervening, although satellite reconnaissance would clearly have shown these lines of pickup trucks kicking up the summer dust. US Special Forces passed through Islamic State positions on the way to Deir al Zor, the US shipped takfir fighters out of Raqqa with their families and the US has been training takfiris rebranded as ‘rebel’ fighters at its Al Tanf base. [1]
And Salt’s accurate assessment above only scratches the surface of the West’s duplicity and criminality. Tillerson’s repugnant statements also included this gem, as reported by Daniel McAdams in “Breaking – Tillerson Unveils ‘New’ US Syria Plan: ‘Assad Must Go!’ ”
Tillerson also made the bizarre assertion that US troops will remain in Syria to prevent the Syrian government from re-establishing control over the parts of Syria abandoned by a defeated ISIS. So the legitimate government of Syria will be prevented by an illegal United States military occupation from reclaiming its own territory? This is supposed to be a coherent policy? [2]
McAdams is describing longstanding US policy of using terrorist assets such as ISIS as a place - setters. ISIS will occupy, destroy, terrorize, and depopulate an area so that “liberators” can take their place as new occupiers. [3]
Tillerson’s Regime Change utterance, the familiar “Assad must go!” refrain, also represents criminal duplicity, since it is the Syrian government and its allies who are defeating Western terror proxies in Syria. If Assad goes, the terrorists will stay.
As McAdams points out, Libya (which pre-invasion had the highest HDI in Africa) now hosts slave auctions[4] (as well as being a terrorist hub), about half a million have perished in Iraq (from 2003-2011)[5] thanks to that invasion (and this figure does not include over 500,000 children and about one million others murdered by pre-war sanctions). And of course the neo-Nazi infested Kiev junta’s downward-spiralling political economy – another imperial project – is also a disaster. [6]
Finally, the diktat that refugees must be returned to Syria is also beyond ridiculous, since they are already flooding back into liberated areas of Syria, and they will never flood back to a U.S.-occupied, sectarian, terrorist- infested Syrian. But again, that is the duplicitous intent.
The U.S. and its Coalition vassals – including Canada – seek to destroy Syria.  If Tillerson’s demands are met, this is what will happen. And the overseas holocaust will deepen. Those who control the crumbling U.S. Empire must surely be Satanic.
[1]Jeremy Salt, “The US Coalition-Financed ‘Siege’ of East Ghouta Supported by BBC Propaganda.”  21WIRE
[3] Mark Taliano, “War Crimes As Policy.” Global Research. 17 November 2017. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/war-crimes-as-policy/5618777) Accessed 18 January, 2018.
[5] Kerry Sheridan, “Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says.” Agence France Press. 15, October, 2013/Updated 06 December 2017. (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html) Accessed 18 January 2018.  
[6] Alexander Mercouris. “2017: The Ukrainian economy’s dismal year|
Ukrainian economy continued to weaken as inflation rose and living standards fell.” The Duran.
13 January 2018. (http://theduran.com/2017-ukrainian-economys-dismal-year/) Accessed 18 January 2018

Thursday, 18 January 2018

Hawaii’s “False Alarm” and the Advanced Preparations for War against North Korea

This article has been corrected for English readers.
The “false alarm” delivered to a population of 1.5 million in the US Pacific island state of Hawaii on Saturday morning has laid bare the clear and present danger of a nuclear war.

Cell phones lit up with the text message “BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.” Television and radio broadcasts were interrupted with the chilling announcement that “A missile may impact on sea or land within minutes. This is not a drill.”
For 38 minutes, residents of and visitors to Hawaii were confronted face to face with nuclear Armageddon. Parents frantically sought to find and protect their children, families said last goodbyes and people desperately sought largely non-existent shelter in anticipation of a nuclear blast.
The fact that this event is so rapidly disappearing from the front pages of major newspapers and is being reduced to a secondary story by television news is itself a disturbing indication of how much more is involved in the Hawaii ballistic missile warning than the public is being told.
The corporate media, working in tight coordination with the US government, is in full containment mode. Monday night, all three US television networks broadcast virtually identical reports based on their admission to Hawaii’s Emergency Management System bunker to support the official story that the chaos was caused by the inadvertent error of a single employee.
The official reaction to what constitutes a social crime committed against an entire population is unfolding according to a well-established pattern. The event and its implications are being minimized. No one is going to conduct an investigation and present findings to the public. There will be no televised public hearings before the US Congress.
The explanation being put out by the state and federal authorities, and parroted by the media, fobs off the nuclear war alert as a mere accident triggered by a single careless worker at Hawaii’s Emergency Management System. The unnamed individual supposedly selected the wrong computer menu option, keying in “Missile Alert” instead of “Test Missile Alert.”
There is no reason that anyone should blindly accept this official story as true. Given the record of the US government in staging provocations and launching wars based upon lies, not only severe scepticism, but outright suspicion is called for.
How could such an accident happen? Once again, a major public event is shrouded in secrecy. Why has the individual allegedly responsible for the “accident” not been named? The claim that the person is being protected against retaliation by enraged citizens is not credible. At the very least, the single individual who is being blamed for the colossal error should have the right to tell his or her side of the story. And even if the incident was triggered by a single mistaken keypunch, that does not explain why it took a full, excruciating 38 minutes for the authorities to send out a follow-up message announcing that the warning had been a “false alarm.”
Even if one were to accept the authorities’ version of events as good coin, such an “accident” constitutes a devastating indictment of the criminal indifference of the US ruling establishment toward the lives and safety of the American people. The existence of such a ramshackle system, employing absurdly primitive software and technology as the supposed first line of defence, only makes clear that the ruling class accepts that nuclear war will mean the deaths of millions and has no serious plan to protect anyone. Just as with every other disaster, natural or otherwise, the incident in Hawaii has exposed the total absence of essential infrastructure and social planning.
That these events unfolded in Hawaii, the scene of the so-called “sneak attack” of December 7, 1941, the “date which will live in infamy” of American lore, make them all the more telling. The headquarters of the US Pacific Command, Hawaii boasts 11 separate military bases comprising units from every branch of the US military.
The significance of Saturday’s nuclear war alert becomes clear only within the context of the advanced state of preparations for a US war of aggression against nuclear-armed North Korea.
A glimpse into the scope of these preparations was provided Monday in a front-page article published by the New York Times. Absurdly, the piece begins, “Across the military, officers and troops are preparing for a war they hope will not come.” Yet the substance of the article makes clear that what is being prepared is not a defence against a North Korean attack, but rather the invasion and conquest of the East Asian country.
The article describes an exercise last month involving 48 Apache gunships and Chinook cargo helicopters practicing “moving troops and equipment under live artillery fire to assault targets.” Two days later, it reports, paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division staged a jump in Nevada that “simulated a foreign invasion.”
Even more ominously, the Times reports that for the first time in years, more than 1,000 US Army reservists have been called up for active duty to man “mobilization centres” used for the rapid movement of troops overseas.
The preparations also include a plan to deploy large numbers of Special Operations troops to the Korean Peninsula under the cover of providing security for next month’s Winter Olympics.
More and more, these actions begin to resemble the run-up to the US war of aggression against Iraq in 2003, with the exception that this time around the American public is being given no warning of impending mass carnage, outside of the raving tweets of the US commander-in-chief.
That the Times article appeared at all—under the by-line of Eric Schmitt, the Times’ chief “embedded” reporter and a faithful conduit for the Pentagon and CIA—makes it clear that the military preparations are of such a magnitude that they are becoming broadly known, requiring the “newspaper of record” to attempt to manage the news.
The article also points to divisions between the White House and the Pentagon and within the US military command itself over impending war with North Korea. Trump and his aides reportedly are toying with what has been termed a “bloody nose” attack targeting North Korean nuclear weapons, based on the assumption that Pyongyang would not retaliate.
Within this context, the “accidental” nuclear alert in Hawaii emerges as a necessary link in the chain of preparations for a catastrophic war. Was the “false alarm” itself one more military exercise? Were the people of Hawaii used as guinea pigs to test the public reaction should a US invasion of North Korea prompt the government of Kim Jong Un to fire off its missiles before they could be destroyed?
There is another possible explanation for the false alarm and the prolonged wait for it to be rescinded. The Times also published an article Monday referring to the 1983 KAL 007 incident as an example of how an unintended nuclear war could erupt. It fails to explain, however, that the Korean Airlines passenger jet was shot down by Soviet air defence fighters after it deliberately flew over Sakhalin, the site of numerous top secret Soviet military bases, as part of an operation coordinated with US intelligence agencies. A US spy plane was flying on a parallel course, shadowing the KAL flight, observing the responses of Soviet nuclear installations, radar stations and air bases.
There is no question that once the incoming missile alert was issued in Hawaii, the government and the military, not only in North Korea, but also in China and Russia, were compelled to make their own rapid estimates as to what it meant and how they should respond. The logical conclusion would be that Washington was staging a false pretext for all-out war.
No doubt, military units were placed on alert, weapons were readied or moved and other preparations for possible nuclear conflict were carried out, all under the watchful eyes of US spy satellites, providing intelligence that could prove vital for a planned US invasion of North Korea.
Whatever the cause of Saturday’s nuclear scare, one thing is certain. The missile alert staged in Hawaii constitutes a deadly serious warning. It has exposed before millions the very real threat of nuclear war.
The original source of this article is World Socialist Web Site

Tuesday, 2 January 2018

Day of Infamy for the UN Security Council: Triggering a Devastating Humanitarian Crisis in North Korea

Resolution 2397, December 22, 2017: Security Council Inflicts Gestapo-Style Sanctions on DPRK, Despite Warnings, They Will Annihilate the People of North Korea

Ignoring the avalanche of evidence that prior sanctions on the DPRK are causing a devastating humanitarian crisis for the people of North Korea, especially the most vulnerable, on December 22, despite warnings of the catastrophic consequences to the people, the UN Security Council passed a new set of sanctions so draconian and inhumane that they must be compared to Hitler’s Nuremberg laws.
In quintessentially bad faith, many of these Security Council diplomats who voted “yes” professed ignorance of the human suffering their prior sanctions were inflicting, or are wantonly indifferent to the human agony their votes for these new sanctions make inevitable.
In view of the collapse of the DPRK’s socialist economic system these sanctions are intended to provoke, the ultimate question remains why China and Russia failed to veto these sanctions, while they have the power to prevent this catastrophe. What “arrangements” were made? Has the U.S. juggernaut succeeded in inducing the short-sighted submission of Russia and China, who must certainly anticipate the horrific results of a collapse of the DPRK, which will lead to the complete destabilization of the Eurasian continent, a permanent American military presence, and probably nuclear war. Surely Russia must remember that Gorbachev was assured by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, that, in return for the Soviet Union’s agreement to the reunification of Germany,
“NATO will not expand one inch east of Berlin.”
Today Russia is surrounded by NATO bases. Was Gorbachev gullible or treacherous? Russians frequently suspect the latter.
All five permanent members of the Security Council are themselves are in gross violation of Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires their divesting their military arsenals of nuclear weapons; they are, instead, investing trillions of dollars in upgrading “nukes.” Article 6 of the NPT requires their negotiating, in good faith, a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons,; this United Nations treaty was adopted this year, ignored by Russia and China, and opposed by the US, UK and France in a virulent campaign. The US is also violating article 1 of the NPT, placing nuclear weapons in 5 NATO countries: these 5 countries, including Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Germany are in violation of Article 2 of the NPT. In violation of the NPT, themselves, the Permanent 5 members of the Security Council have absolutely no right to condemn the DPRK, which is not even a party to the NPT.

United Nations Security Council resolution 2397 dooms the UN to a legacy of destruction of stable, progressive independent nations including Iraq, Libya, and now the DPRK.
Prior to the adoption of resolution, 2397, the UN Human Rights Commissioner revealed that the tough sanctions already imposed on the DPRK are obstructing delivery of desperately needed humanitarian aid. As a result, 70% of the population, 18 million North Koreans suffer from acute food shortages. Sanctions obstructing international bank transfers are blocking UN ground operations, preventing delivery of food, medical equipment and other humanitarian aid.
According to AFP:
“’Aid groups are facing hurdles to clear customs for goods destined for North Korea, to ensure procurement and transport of aid supplies, as well as rising food prices that have shot up 160% since April,’ said UN Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenca.”
On December 9, NBC news reported:
“The Trump administration’s primary North Korea strategy would do little to curb the country’s nuclear program, and could trigger a famine, according to experts. The White House is urging China to turn off oil supplies to the 25 million Koreans…many analysts say such a move would have minimal impact on North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, and would instead hit the country’s agricultural sector, potentially leading to mass starvation.”
Dr. David Von Hippel, a senior adviser at the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability warned the results of an oil embargo could have a catastrophic impact on a humanitarian level.

“An oil cutoff would drastically reduce the amount of domestically grown food available to the civilian population….What arable land there is the DPRK farms intensively. They rely on tractors, irrigation pumps, refrigerators and transportation trucks to harvest and distribute food before it rots….even the current level of sanctions imposed in September (Resolution 2375) will impoverish North Korea’s breadbasket.”
On October 25 UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the DPRK, Tomas Quintana stated that he was

“alarmed by reports that sanctions may have prevented cancer patients from access to chemotherapy…the shipment of wheelchairs and essential equipment for persons with disabilities is now constrained…humanitarian actors are facing difficulties to source much-needed supplies and carry out international financial transactions.”
Following his return from Pyongyang, UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman stated:

“What I was concerned about was the reduction in programs for the DPRK. The program is only 30 percent funded. It’s having a large impact on how the UN can deliver on its humanitarian programs. I was concerned about the overall lack of funding…which affects the UN’s ability to deliver life-saving equipment on the ground.”
This humanitarian disaster is neither accidental nor coincidental. All this information was publicly available to all 15 members of the Security Council prior to December 22, when they inflicted even more deadly sanctions on the people of North Korea. The Security Council is an accessory to these crimes. Though they boast, irresponsibly, that the sanctions contain “humanitarian exemption,” how do they explain the alarming failure to implement these “humanitarian exemptions,” and the fact that the tragic victims of these criminal and fatal sanctions are the majority of the people of North Korea?
The damning answer is revealed in the investigation of the failure of “humanitarian aid” in the case of sanctions against Iraq, which resulted in another humanitarian catastrophe, including the death from starvation of more than half a million Iraqi children. In a brilliant work of investigative journalism by Joy Gordon, entitled “Cool War: Economic Sanctions as a Weapon of Mass Destruction,” (Published in Harper’s, 2002) Ms. Gordon States:

“News of Iraqi fatalities has been well documented (by the United Nations, among others), though underreported by the media. What has remained invisible, however, is any documentation of how and by whom such a death toll has been justified for so long…..But I soon learned that all U.N. records that could answer my questions were kept from public scrutiny. This is not to say that the UN is lacking in public documents related to the Iraq program. What is unavailable are the documents that show how the U.S. policy agenda has determined the outcome of humanitarian and security judgments…The operation of Iraq sanctions involves numerous agencies within the United Nations…These agencies have been careful not to publicly discuss their ongoing frustration with the manner in which the program is operated…Over the last three years, through research and interviews with diplomats I have acquired many of the key confidential UN documents concerning the administration of Iraq sanctions. I obtained these documents on the condition that my sources remain anonymous. What they show is that the United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country. And it has done so in the face of enormous human suffering, including massive increases in child mortality and widespread epidemics…what is less well known is that the government of Saddam Hussein had invested heavily in health, education, and social programs for two decades prior to the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Iraq was a rapidly developing country with free education, ample electricity, modernized agriculture and a robust middle class.”
The diplomats who heedlessly refer to failed “humanitarian exemptions” to these DPRK sanctions are privy to the facts excavated by Joy Gordon, and published in Harpers, and these diplomats are aware of the actual cause of the failure of “humanitarian aid.” This failure is the deliberate, premeditated killing of innocent North Koreans, and that is the purpose of these sanctions, which do not , in fact, affect the nuclear program. In any civilized, responsible organization, the perpetrators of these sanctions would be convicted of premeditated murder.
North Korea is not an aggressor: they fought successfully against brutal Japanese colonization, and were then provoked into defending themselves from guerrilla attacks by U.S. client Syngman Rhee’s army, in 1949, which violated the 38 parallel to attack North Korea, the provocation that ignited the Korean War of 1950-1953. Today, the US, South Korea and Japan are imperiling the survival of North Korea with their incessant military threats.
In the 1950-1953 U.S. led UN attack of North Korea, more than 3-4 million North Koreans were murdered by carpet-bombing, napalm, germ warfare and other weapons of mass destruction. These figures are confirmed by US General Curtis LeMay, and numerous others involved in perpetrating this massacre of North Koreans. As traumatic memories of the slaughter of 1 million Armenians by the Turks over 100 years ago still fester within the lives of today’s Armenians, as Hitler’s genocide of 6 million Jews 70 years ago cannot be forgotten by today’s Jews, so the massacre of more than three million North Koreans by a US controlled UN army can never be forgotten by North Korea, whose government is determined to protect North Korea from a repetition of this horror. And the only weapon that might deter the United States from another attempt to totally destroy the last remaining socialist country is their nuclear weapon, which might require the US to think twice before another attack.

Thus, an alternative method of slaughter, UN Security Council Resolution 2397, despite alarming warnings of catastrophic humanitarian consequences , ruthlessly cuts 90 percent of oil supplies to the DPRK; the resolution demands that 150,000 North Koreans working in other countries must be expelled, and have their jobs eliminated within 24 months, exacerbating the impoverishment of North Korea; in addition to other restrictions, and together with a large number of previous travel bans against individuals crucial to the economic sector of the DPRK, Resolution 2397 includes further travel bans against 15 key members of the economic sector, and foreign trade representatives.
Ambassador Han Tae Song, at the UN in Geneva earlier stated:
“It is obvious that the aim of the sanctions is to overthrow the system of my country by isolating and stifling it and to intentionally bring about humanitarian disaster instead of preventing weapons development as claimed by the U.S. and its followers.”
On December 7 it was reported that South Korea will spend almost $1,000,000.00 to purchase drones and grenade machine guns, for a “Decapitation Unit” to murder Kim Jong UN. This, of course is not only criminal homicide, it is in violation of international law. On December 10 Reuters reported that Japan, the US and South Korea will hold additional military drills, immediately following the December 4 US- South Korea large-scale military drills held the prior week. This is an incessant military threat to the survival of the people and government of North Korea, and an intolerable provocation. On December 17 South Korean and U.S. forces conducted a joint military plan to invade North Korea, ostensibly to “remove weapons of mass destruction.” This “Warrior Strike” military exercise was held at Camp Stanley, north of Seoul, near the 38 parallel. US commander of Forces Korea Vincent Brooks, and Lt. General Thomas Vandal were present at the “Warrior Strike” military drills.

By November 28, the government of the DPRK had not tested anything for almost three months. Instead of attempting peaceful negotiations in this stable atmosphere, as required by all Security Council Resolutions, the US, on the contrary, escalated its military threats against North Korea, with a series of deadly military drills. It is therefore preposterous that U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillersonstated on December 15 that North Korea must “earn” the right to negotiations. North Korea had conspicuously halted any testing for almost three months prior, and instead of seizing the opportunity to establish negotiations for peace, the US aggressively increased military threats.

The DPRK Foreign Ministry called US President Trump’s national security strategy
“the most recent American policy seeking to stifle our country and turn the entire Korean peninsula into an outpost of American hegemony…Trump is seeking total subordination of the whole world.”
UN Security Council Resolution 2397 will be fatal to North Korea’s economy. It will destroy the majority of the people, but have little or no impact on weapons development.
Finally, it is revealing that on December 4 the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the “Prohibition of the development and manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons: report of the Conference on Disarmament”. The DPRK voted “Yes” in support of this resolution. The U.S. voted “No,” in opposition. Again, on the General Assembly resolution on the “Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation” the DPRK voted “Yes,” in support of this resolution, while the U.S. voted “No” in opposition. It is obvious which country is a threat to world peace: it is not the DPRK.
It is freezing in New York today. If an 90% oil cutoff were imposed on the United States, a huge number of civilians would freeze to death. The winter in North Korea is even colder. Resolution 2397 will condemn the people of North Korea to excruciating deaths. Ironically, December 22 is the United Nations “Holocaust Remembrance Day.” It is shameful that on December 22 the United Nations Security Council voted to inflict the Twenty –First Century’s Holocaust upon the people of North Korea. With the passage of Resolution 2397, the United Nations Security Council has become an instrument of barbarism and terror.
Carla Stea is Global Research’s Correspondent at United Nations headquarters, New York.
Featured image is from Zobiyen TV.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Carla Stea, Global Research, 2017