Irish hold crunch EU treaty vote

The referendum result is not expected until Saturday afternoon Polling opens shortly in Ireland's second referendum on the EU's Lisbon Treaty - a vote that could be decisive for long-delayed changes in the EU. Irish voters rejected the treaty by referendum in June 2008, by a margin of almost 7%. This time opinion polls suggest the "Yes" camp will win. The Republic of Ireland is the only one of the EU's 27 member states to put the treaty to a referendum. Ireland's economy has been hit hard by the credit crunch since the last vote. The treaty, aimed at streamlining decision-making in the enlarged bloc, cannot take effect unless all the member states ratify it.The referendum result is not expected until early afternoon on Saturday. Apart from Ireland, the only other countries yet to ratify it are the Czech Republic and Poland. All of Ireland's major parties campaigned for a "Yes" vote except the nationalist Sinn Fein. The "Yes" camp also had some lavish donations from big business. The repeat referendum is about the same treaty text, but since last year EU leaders have given specific commitments on issues which made some Irish voters nervous last time. The country will not be forced to legalise abortion, to lose control over taxation, and will not have its neutrality threatened. Opponents say Lisbon undermines national sovereignty and concentrates too much power in Brussels. The treaty would bring in some major changes. It would expand the policy areas subject to qualified majority voting (QMV), rather than unanimity. It would also establish a new post of president of the European Council - the grouping of EU states' leaders - and a high representative for foreign affairs. Treaty supporters say that Lisbon would greatly increase the European Parliament's powers of "co-decision" with the European Council. Ireland would retain its commissioner under Lisbon, as the treaty would keep the European Commission team at 27. Without Lisbon, the Commission team would have to be reduced in size.

புதிய பாலம் திறந்த 2 நாளில் 2 விபத்துகள் - பாலம் மூடல்

மதுரை அருகே கொட்டாம்பட்டியிலுள்ள மதுரை-திருச்சி நான்குவழிச்சாலையில் புதிதாக கட்டப்பட்ட பாலம் திறக்கப்பட்ட 2 நாட்களில் தொடர்ந்து 2 விபத்துக்கள் நடந்தன. இதனையடுத்து மாற்றுப்பாதை கோரி, கிராம மக்கள் மறியலில் ஈடுபட்டதைத் தொடர்ந்து அப்பகுதியில் தற்காலிகமாக நான்குவழிச்சாலை மூடப்பட்டது.

மதுரை மாவட்டம் கொட்டாம்பட்டி பகுதி மதுரை -திருச்சி தேசிய நெடுஞ்சாலையில் முக்கிய சந்திப்பாகும். மேலும் திண்டுக்கல் - காரைக் குடி சாலையும் கொட்டாம்பட்டியில் சந்திக்கிறது. ஏற்கனவே இந்தப் பகுதியில் தேசிய நெடுஞ்சாலை ஒன்றும் உள்ளது. தற்போது இப்பகுதியில் திருச்சி-மதுரை நான்குவழிச்சாலை ஒன்று அமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

இந்த நான்கு வழிச்சாலையில் வயல்சேரிப்பட்டி அருகே புதிய பாலம் ஒன்று அமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. அந்தப் பாலம் நேற்று முன்தினம் போக்குவரத்திற்காக திறந்து விடப்பட்டது. அதனைத் தொடர்ந்து திருச்சியில் இருந்து மதுரை நோக்கி வாகனங்கள் இந்தப் பாலம் வழியாக சென்று வரத் தொடங்கின.

கிராமப்பகுதியில் இருந்து வரும் வாகனங்கள் இப்புதியபாலம் வழியாகவே செல்ல வேண்டும். ஆனால் கிராமத்தில் இருந்து வரும் சாலை பள்ளமாகவும் பாலம் மிக உயரத்திலும் அமைந்துள்ளது. இதனால் கிராம சாலையில் வரும் வாகனங்கள் பாலத்தில் ஏறும் போது நான்கு வழிச்சாலையில் வேகமாக வரும் வாகனங்களுக்குத் தெரிவதில்லை. பாலம் உயரத்தில் இருப்பதால் கிராம சாலையில் இருந்து வரும் வாகனங்களும் வேகமாக வந்தாலே பாலத்தில் ஏற முடியும்.இதன் காரணமாக, பாலம் திறக்கப்பட்ட 2 தினங்களில் அடுத்தடுத்து 2 விபத்துகள் நடந்துவிட்டன. பாலம் திறக்கப்பட்ட நேற்று முன்தினம் மாலை சொக்கம்பட்டியை சேர்ந்த கருப்பையா என்பவர் மீது வாகனம் மோதியது. இதில் படுகாயம் அடைந்த அவர், மதுரை பெரிய மருத்துவமனையில் சேர்க்கப்பட்டார்.

நேற்று தொந்திலிங்கபுரத்தை சேர்ந்த குமார்(35) மற்றும் சாமிநாதன்(25) ஆகியோர் வயல்சேரிபட்டி ரோட்டில் இருந்து இருசக்கர வாகனத்தில், நான்குவழிச்சாலையில் ஏறினர். அப்போது கார் மோதியதில் இருவரும் படுகாயம் அடைந்தனர். குமாரின் 2 கால்களும் ஒரு கையும் முறிந்தன. இருவரும் மதுரை பெரிய மருத்துவமனைக்குக் கொண்டு செல்லப்பட்டனர்.

அடுத்தடுத்து நடந்த விபத்துக்களால் ஆத்திரமடைந்த கிராம மக்கள் நேற்று சாலை மறியலில் இறங்கினர். வலைச்சேரிப்பட்டி, சொக்கம்பட்டி, வலையங்குளத்துப்பட்டி, வேலாயுதம்பட்டி, தொந்திலிங்கபுரம் ஆகிய கிராமங்களை சேர்ந்த மக்கள் ஒன்று திரண்டு புதிய நான்கு வழிச்சாலையிலும் பழைய சாலையில் போலீஸ் ஸ்டேஷன் அருகிலும் காலை 9.30 மணிக்கு மறியலில் இறங்கினர். இதனால் அந்தச் சாலையில் போக்குவரத்து முற்றிலும் பாதிக்கப்பட்டது. திருச்சி உள்ளிட்ட பகுதிகளில் இருந்து வந்த வாகனங்கள், சிங்கம்புணரி, புழுதிப்பட்டி வழியாக மாற்றிவிடப்பட்டன. மறியல் தொடரவே சம்பவ இடத்திற்கு மேலூர் டி.எஸ்.பி. விஜயபாஸ்கரன், இன்ஸ்பெக்டர் பாலாஜி, கொட்டாம்பட்டி இன்ஸ்பெக்டர் சண்முகம், சப்-இன்ஸ்பெக்டர் பொம்மையசாமி, தேசிய நெடுஞ்சாலைத்துறை ஆணைய மேலாளர் சுரேந்திரநாத், பொறியாளர்கள், சமூக பாதுகாப்பு திட்ட தாசில்தார் ஜெகநாதன், மண்டல துணை வட்டாட்சியர் விவேகானந்தன், வருவாய் ஆய்வாளர் விஜயலெட்சுமி, தி.மு.க. ஒன்றிய செயலாளர் துரை ராஜேந்திரன் உள்ளிட்டோர் வந்து, மறியலில் ஈடுபட்டவர்களுடன் பேச்சுவார்த்தை நடத்தினர்.

கிராம மக்கள் தரப்பில், "தற்போது உள்ள பாலத்திற்குப் பதில் தாங்கள் சென்று வர பக்கவாட்டு சாலை அமைக்க வேண்டும்; அதுவரை பாலத்தில் போக்குவரத்தை அனுமதிக்கக் கூடாது" என கோரிக்கை வைக்கப்பட்டது. நீண்ட நேரம் நடந்த பேச்சுவார்த்தையின் இறுதியில், பாலத்தைத் தற்காலிகமாக மூடுவது என முடிவு செய்யப்பட்டது. மேலும், இந்தப் பிரச்சினை குறித்து வரும் 10-ந் தேதி மேலூர் தாசில்தார் அலுவலகத்தில் அமைதி பேச்சுவார்த்தை நடத்துவது எனவும் தீர்மானிக்கப்பட்டது. இதையடுத்து கிராம மக்கள் சாலை மறியலை கைவிட்டு கலைந்து சென்றனர்.

தேக்கடியில் படகு கவிழ்ந்து 35 பேர் பலி!

தேக்கடியில் படகில் 85 பேருடன் சுற்றுலா சென்ற போது படகு கவிழ்ந்து விபத்துக்கு ள்ளானது.

இந்த விபத்தில் இதுவரை 35 பேர் பலியாகி உள்ளதாக தகவல்கள் கூறுகின்றன. கேரள சுற்றுலாத்துறைக்கு சொந்தமான ஜலகன்னிகா என்ற படகில் 85 பேருடன் படகு சென்றுள்ளது. படகு இல்லத்திலிருந்து சுமார் 2 கி.மீ., தொலைவிலுள்ள மனக்காவல என்ற இடத்தில் இந்த விபத்து நிகழ்ந்துள்ளது. பலியானவர்களில் நான்கு பேர் தமிழகத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவர்கள். இருவர் வெளிநாட்டு சுற்றுலா பயணிகள் என்று முதல்கட்டத் தகவல்கள் கூறுகின்றன. பலரது நிலை என்னவென்று தெரியவில்லை.

படகில் பயணம் செய்தவர்களில் தமிழகத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவர்கள் அதிக அளவில் இருந்ததாகக் கூறப்படுகிறது. விபத்து நடந்த பகுதிக்கு மீட்பு குழுக்கள் விரைந்துள்ளன. இந்த படகில் 75 பேர் வரை தான் சுற்றுலா செல்ல முடியும் என்றும் இந்தப் படகு கடந்த ஒரு மாதத்றிகு முன்பு தான் வாங்கப்பட்டது என்றும் செய்திகள் தெரிவிக்கின்றன.

இந்தோனேசியாவில் பயங்கர நிலநடுக்கம்: சுனாமி எச்சரிக்கை!

இந்தோனேசியாவின் சுமத்ரா தீவில் இன்று பயங்கர நில நடுக்கம் ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது. இந்த நிலநடுக்கத்தைத் தொடர்ந்து இந்தியப் பெருங்கடல் பகுதியில் உள்ள நாடுகளுக்கு சுனாமி எச்சரிக்கை விடுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

ரிக்டர் அளவுகோலில் 7.9 ஆக பதிவானதாக அமெரிக்க நிலவியல் அமைப்பு கூறியுள்ளது. தெற்கு சுமத்ராவில் உள்ள படாங் நகரில் கட்டிடங்கள் இடிந்து விழுந்துள்ளதாக இந்தோனேசிய தொலைக்காட்சி கூறியுள்ளது.

நிலநடுக்கம் 7.6 ஆக பதிவானதாகவும் சுமார் 50 கிலோ மீட்டர் பரப்பளவில் உணரப்பட்டதாகவும் இந்தோனேசிய வாணியல் ஆய்வு மையம் கூறியுள்ளது.

உயர்வான அலைகள் குறித்து இதுவரை தகவல்கள் இல்லை என்றாலும் இந்தோனேசியா, மலேசியா, தாய்லாந்து மற்றும் இந்தியா ஆகிய நாடுகளுக்கு சுனாமி எச்சரிக்கை விடுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

சுனாமியால் லெசா கிராமம் காணாமல் போனது: சமோவா பிரதமர்

தெற்கு பசிபிக் கடலில் ஹவாய் தீவிலிருந்து 2,300 மைல் தொலைவில் அமைந்துள்ளது சமோவா மற்றும் அமெரிக்க சமோவா தீவுகள். சமோவா தீவுகளில் இரண்டு லட்சத்துக்கும் அதிகமான மக்கள் வசிக்கின்றனர். இவற்றில் அமெரிக்காவின் கட்டுப்பாட்டில் உள்ள சமோவா தீவில் மட்டும் 65 ஆயிரம் பேர் வசிக்கின்றனர். நேற்று முன்தினம் இந்த தீவுகளில், 8 ரிக்டர் அளவுக்கு பூகம்பம் ஏற்பட்டது.

இதைத் தொடர்ந்து சுனாமி ஏற்பட்டு, தீவுகளுக்குள் கடல் நீர் சாலைகள், வீடுகளில் புகுந்த கடல் நீர், அதே வேகத்தில் கடலுக்குள் வேகமாக திரும்பியதில் ஏராளமானவர்கள் வெள்ளத்தில் அடித்துச் செல்லப்பட்டனர். பசிபிக் கடலில் அமைந்துள்ள சமோவா தீவுகளில் ஏற்பட்ட சுனாமியால் பலியானவர்களின் எண்ணிக்கை 150 ஆக உயர்ந்துள்ளது. நியூசிலாந்துக்கு அருகில் உள்ள சமோவா தீவின் பிரதமர் குறிப்பிடுகையில், "இந்த தீவின் லெசா என்ற கிராமம், சுனாமியில் காணாமல் போய் விட்டது. மற்ற இடங்களில் ஒரு வீடு கூட உருப்படியாக இல்லை. கிட்டத்தட்ட அனைத்து வீடுகளும் சேதமடைந்துள்ளன. இது வரை 110 பேரின் சடலங்கள் கண்டெடுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன' என்றார்.

அமெரிக்க கட்டுப்பாட்டில் உள்ள சமோவா தீவில் 30 பேரும், டோங்கா தீவில் ஒன்பது பேரும் சுனாமியால் பலியாகியுள்ளனர். "சுனாமி தாக்கிய 10 நிமிடங்களில் இந்த தீவுகளின் வடிவமே மாறி விட்டது. எங்கு பார்த்தாலும் குப்பையும், கூளமுமாக மாறி விட்டது' என இப்பகுதியில் வசிக்கும் மக்கள் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர். கடந்த 2004ம் ஆண்டு இந்தியா, இந்தோனேசியா, இலங்கை உள்ளிட்ட பகுதிகளில் ஏற்பட்ட சுனாமியை தொடர்ந்து பல இடங்களில் சுனாமி எச்சரிக்கை கருவிகள் வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன.

Obama in Iran inspection demand

Iran says the enrichment plant at Qom is not operational yet US President Barack Obama says Iran must give UN inspectors "unfettered access" to its second uranium enrichment facility within two weeks. Speaking after multi-party talks with Iran in Geneva, Mr Obama said the US' patience was "not unlimited". "Iran must take concrete steps to build confidence that its nuclear programme will serve peaceful purposes," he said. Tehran revealed last week that it was developing an enrichment site near the city of Qom. Earlier, several hours of talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, ended with an agreement to continue dialogue. Tehran insists it has the right to develop nuclear energy, but the revelation of the second enrichment facility raised fears among Western governments that it was trying to develop nuclear weapons. 'Constructive beginning' Thursday's talks in Geneva were the first between the six world powers and Iran since July 2008, which ended in deadlock.Afterwards, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, told reporters that parties had "agreed to intensify dialogue in the coming weeks" and hold further discussions before the end of the month. He said Iran had told them that it planned to "co-operate fully and immediately" with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the new enrichment facility, and would invite inspectors "soon, we expect in the next couple of weeks". Mr Solana also said it had been agreed in principle that some low-enriched uranium (LEU) produced in Iran would be sent to a third country for further enrichment and fabrication into fuel for the Tehran research reactor, which produces isotopes for medical applications.The EU envoy noted the significance of the full participation of the United States, particularly the rare bilateral talks between Undersecretary of State William Burns and Tehran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, during lunch. At a news conference in Washington later on Thursday, President Obama said the Iranian government had heard a clear and unified message from the international community in Geneva. "Iran must demonstrate through concrete steps that it will live up to its responsibilities with regard to its nuclear programme," he said. "In pursuit of that goal, today's meeting was a constructive beginning. But, it must be followed with constructive action by the Iranian government." Mr Obama said Tehran had to demonstrate its commitment to transparency by granting IAEA inspectors unfettered access to the facility near Qom within two weeks, and then build confidence in the West that its nuclear programme is peaceful. "We expect to see swift action. We're committed to serious and meaningful engagement, but we're not interested in talking for the sake of talking," he warned. Iran says the enrichment plant at Qom is not operational yet "If Iran does not take steps in the near future to live up to its obligations then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely and we are prepared to move towards increased pressure," he added. "Our patience is not unlimited." Earlier at the United Nations in New York, Iran's foreign minister said the six powers had taken a different approach to the talks, and not reached a "hasty" judgement about Tehran's proposed agenda. Manouchehr Mottaki said the negotiations in Geneva had been held in a "constructive" atmosphere and expressed hope that the other side would demonstrate political will and determination. He declared that Iran was prepared to enhance the form of the discussions and raise them to the level of a "summit" meeting. Mr Mottaki also said Iran had now announced all of its nuclear sites to the IAEA, and defended its right to pursue uranium enrichment.

The U.S., Iran and nuclear terror

Iran's admission that it is enriching uranium at a second nuclear site was greeted with alarm in the halls of Washington and in American newsrooms on Friday. Obama has long warned about the "existential threat" that Iran poses to the U.S. and its allies. Concern over a nuclear Iran is understandable for those who are committed to the abolition of nuclear weapons, and for those who worry about the danger that nuclear proliferation poses for human survival.

It should be noted, however, that the Obama administration does not share those concerns. U.S. officials have always been preoccupied with how to prohibit enemy states from developing these weapons, while ensuring maximum U.S. and allied maneuverability in keeping such weapons, and even in using them when deemed necessary.

I consistently stress that U.S. national intelligence and international intelligence provide no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. While I stand by this conclusion, it is worth noting that Iran's declaration this week that it was quietly developing nuclear fuel (fuel that it had not reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency) is troubling for those committed to transparency in the development and use of nuclear fuel. Indeed, it would not be surprising if the Iranian regime decided at some point - perhaps in the near future - that it needed to develop nuclear weapons to protect itself from the belligerent rhetoric and threats of the U.S. and Israel. It is also at least theoretically possible that Iran already decided to proceed with a weapons program, although the uranium disclosed at Iran's two nuclear plants is clearly unfit to be used in developing such weapons. All of the uranium currently used in Iran - at least the uranium that has been reported to or found by the IAEA - is not of a weapons grade quality. The BBC reports that legally, Iran "does not need to inform the IAEA of any new [nuclear] site until 180 days before any nuclear material is placed in the facility." For the record, the second plant reported in the news this week is not yet operational. Hence it is not evidence - contrary to the claims of Obama - of an Iranian violation of the inspection process or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The major point that needs to be understood is that, as of today, there is still no hard evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

There is certainly good reason, however, for Iranians to be concerned with U.S. aggression. Although the Obama administration indicates that it would sit down and negotiate with Iran without preconditions, it also refuses to take the military option off the table. The threat of a U.S. attack (or an attack itself) threatens to throw an already volatile region into complete chaos. A review of the US foreign policy record is also a cause for concern when evaluating US threats against Iran. The review below is illuminating:

The number of major U.S. invasions since World War II: 13

By conservative estimates, the U.S. led over a dozen invasions of sovereign countries in the last 65 years - including attacks on North Korea (1950 and 1951), Cuba (1961), South Vietnam (1962), The Dominican Republic (1965), Cambodia (1970), Lebanon (1982-1983), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991), Haiti (1994), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq again (2003). U.S. covert operations designed to overthrow foreign governments are about three times more common than invasions. As William Blum explains in his classic book Rogue State, "From 1945 to the end of the century, the U.S. attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes." To that list of attempted overthrows in the post-2000 period one could add Venezuela, Iraq, Haiti, Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iran - just to name the cases we know about.

The number of nuclear weapons that the US and allies possess, in violation of the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: 22,965

While Iran is a non-nuclear state, the number of nuclear weapons possessed by powers that either support sanctions or an attack on Iran is staggering (this list includes Russia, the U.S., UK, Israel, the UK, and France). The U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians, despite its claims that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a responsible act intended to reduce American lives lost and force an early end to the war.

The number of times the IAEA has successfully inspected the US and its allies' nuclear arsenals in order to force them to disarm: 0

This point remains absolutely vital. Nuclear states retain their "right" to keep nuclear weapons indefinitely, while forcing other countries into inspections with the threat of sanctions and war. In the case of Iran and Iraq, both countries were forced into inspections by the UN Security Council - a body the U.S. has long used as a weapon against weaker non-nuclear states. Furthermore, the U.S. does not even pretend to secretly reconstitute its nuclear weapons stockpile. U.S. leaders contemptuously flaunt their disregard of the NPT's disarmament requirement by publicly announcing their intent to redevelop nuclear weapons. The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program is a case in point, which Secretary of Defense Robert Gates supported as a means of "modernizing" the U.S. nuclear stockpile. The program's funding was eventually cut off by Congress in 2008, although that has not stopped the US from developing and using other radioactive weapons such as Depleted Uranium shells in the battlefield. While Depleted Uranium is clearly not the same as a nuclear weapon, we would do well to remember that the danger of radioactive weapons is cited as a major reason for detaining alleged terrorists such as Jose Padilla - the infamous Chicago "dirty bomber."

The number of times Iran has threatened another country with nuclear annihilation: 0

Much has been made of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's alleged claim that he will "wipe Israel off the map." Scholarly analysis of this incident reveals that this is likely an inaccurate reading of Ahmadinejad's statement. As Middle East expert Juan Cole explains, the statement was originally drawn from a speech from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, which promised that the "[Israeli] regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." As those familiar with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict understand, there is a great difference between demanding that an illegal occupation come to an end and a threat to wipe the state of Israel off the face of the earth. Ahmadinejad is rightly condemned throughout the world as an anti-Semite, but denying the Holocaust is not the equivalent of supporting the nuclear annihilation of Israel. Even if Ahmadinejad does believe that Israel should be destroyed, U.S. pundits and officials are hard pressed to explain how he would accomplish this task without the possession of nuclear weapons, and in light of the fact that Ahmadinejad does not hold the power to make decisions regarding Iranian foreign policy. As the supreme leader in Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has final say over foreign policy. Furthermore, the Iranian leadership indicated as recently as 2003 that it was willing to negotiate an easing of tensions with the U.S., in exchange for recognizing Israel within the pre-1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders. This fact rarely makes it into journalistic and political screeds framing Iran as an "existential threat" to Israel.

The number of countries the U.S. has explicitly threatened with nuclear annihilation: 8

I am aware of at least eight instances in which the U.S. threatened countries with nuclear weapons. As the Los Angeles Times reported in 2002, the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review included within it "contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, namely not only Russia and the "axis of evil" - Iraq, Iran, and North Korea - but also China, Libya, and Syria. In addition, the US Defense Department has been told to prepare for the possibility that nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis. And it is to develop plans for using nuclear weapons to retaliate against chemical or biological attacks, as well as ‘surprising military developments' of an unspecified nature." The Bush administration's National Security Presidential Directive 17 reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to using nuclear weapons against any country that might use weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. and its allies. Some might discount these two documents as merely defensive posturing or as simple contingency plans that are not likely to be implemented by the U.S. It is worth reflecting for a moment, however, on how U.S. leaders would react to similar documents threatening nuclear war against the U.S. if they were issued by Iraq (under Saddam Hussein), Iran, or any other national enemy.

U.S. plans for nuking other countries go beyond vague hypotheticals. The Nixon administration famously popularized the "madman theory," whereby the U.S. might nuke countries that oppose capitalist interests. As Nixon explained to his Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman, "I call it the madman theory. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the [Vietnam] war. We'll just slip the word to them that, ‘for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about Communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry - and he has his hand on the nuclear button' - and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace."

Nixon's contemplation of nuclear blackmail was not an isolated incident. In 1995, the Strategic Command under the Clinton administration released a study speculating over the use of nuclear weapons for strategic purposes. Titled "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence," the document concluded that the goal of U.S. foreign policy should center on creating fear in the heart of adversaries: "Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the U.S. may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out. It hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational or cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially ‘out of control' can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries...nuclear weapons always cast a shadow over any crisis in which the U.S. is engaged. Thus, deterrence through the threat of nuclear weapons will continue to be our top military strategy." While some might again point out that the document states that the U.S. is "not likely to use [nuclear weapons] in less than matters of the greatest national importance," one can imagine how U.S. leaders would react if they read a document from Iraqi or Iranian officials making similar claims about their "responsible" possession and use of nuclear weapons.

American political elites and journalists will predictably cast stones at Iran for the alleged danger the regime poses to world order. Those with a critical knowledge of US history and policy will be more hesitant to accept this hypocritical "defensive" posturing. We should not discount the danger that the spread of nuclear weapons poses to human survival; but at the same time, we should never exaggerate threats when there is little to no evidence of an immediate danger. Anti-proliferation efforts need to be driven by a sincere, even-handed effort to disarm all nuclear and potentially nuclear powers, whether they are big or small, and regardless of whether they're powerful or weak.

Somali Islamists clash over port

If the two groups fall out nationally, Somalia's woes could worsen Two Islamist groups who were previously working together in Somalia have become embroiled in a fierce fight for control of the southern port of Kismayo. At least 12 people have been killed and hundreds have fled their homes. Al-Shabab is reported to have gained the upper hand over Hizbul-Islam, some of whose fighters have left the town. The two groups have been national allies against the weak, UN-backed government, but tension has been building in Kismayo in recent weeks. The Islamist pair together control most southern and central areas of the country. 'Brothers' The BBC's Mohammed Olad Hassan in the capital, Mogadishu, says fighting started at dawn with sporadic gunfire. But residents told him it quickly escalated with fighters on the streets of the town using light and heavy machine-guns as well as rocket-propelled grenades.Some of those he spoke to had already fled their homes and he could hear loud explosions in the background. "We were attacked by our brothers with no reason," local Hizbul-Islam spokesman Sheikh Ismail Haji Adow said, according to the AFP news agency. "They [al-Shabab] launched their offensive on several fronts very early this morning." Our reporter says the Islamist groups have been in an uneasy alliance to run the town for almost a year. But last week al-Shabab named a new administration which excluded Hizbul-Islam. The tension escalated through the media, with both sides advising their fighters on Wednesday to ready themselves for possible conflict. A Hizbul-Islam official warned on Wednesday that if fighting started it would spread across the country, but correspondents say other Islamist leaders may not have the stomach for all-out war. Our reporter says the fallout could mean that battles erupt in villages and towns around the country where there are joint administrations. Analysts say it could be a turning point for the embattled government. At the moment it controls only small areas of the capital, with the help of African Union peacekeeping troops. President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, a moderate Islamist, was chosen in January after UN-brokered peace talks. He has vowed to implement Sharia but al-Shabab, which is accused of links to al-Qaeda, regards him as a Western puppet. The country has been wracked by conflict since 1991, when it last had an effective national government. Some three million people - half the population - need food aid, while hundreds of thousands of people have fled the country.

Obama stuck between wars on Iraq, Afghanistan

It was extraordinarily questionable why U.S. President Barak Obama chose not to credit the War on Afghanistan with a separate paragraph in his speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 23, to “note” the war on Iraq with only a four – line paragraph, and instead to escalate his war of words on Iran, as if the expansion of the war on Afghanistan into Pakistan was not enough over-depletion of an already exhausted US human, financial and military resources, and as if a threat of a third war in the Middle East would serve in any way the U.S. vital interests in the region or contribute to US elusive victory in either one of both wars. Downplaying the most pressing items on the U.S. agenda and leaping forward to the nuclear issue and Iran was only a thinly – veiled attempt to divert attention away from the fact that Obama was stuck between the worse and the worst in both countries.

On the second anniversary of Blackwater’s massacre of Iraqis in Baghdad’s Al-Nusur Square, CBS on this September 17 asked in a detailed report: “Why Is Obama Still Using Blackwater?” The answer could obviously be found in exhausting the U.S. “volunteer” military manpower stretched out to the maximum to sustain the two U.S. – led wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.

This military manpower debacle leaves Obama with either one of three options: More privatization of both wars and consequently more “blackwaters”, “nationalization” of both wars through “Iraqization” and “Afghanization”, which nonetheless could not disengage the U.S. neither militarily nor financially from both theaters neither in the short term nor in the foreseeable future, or resorting to conscription to sustain a war that has so far proved unwinnable both on Iraq and on Afghanistan after nine years and seven years respectively.

However all three options seem unfeasible. Conscription as the last resort is absolutely an option that would immediately be dismissed because unless it is dictated by a clear-cut threat to national security it will not be accepted as an indispensible measure of self defense, let alone conscribing Americans for a war on Iraq that has been unpopular with them since the U.S. – led invasion in 2003, or for the war on Afghanistan that is increasingly becoming unpopular among them, according to the latest CNN Poll of Polls (58% against), and is gradually eroding Obama’s popularity, which dropped to 50% from 57% in July (Wall Street Journal and NBC News poll on September 23).

The other two options, namely privatization or nationalization of both wars, are evidently contradictory. While Iraqis or Afghanis may swallow a delayed withdrawal of foreign military troops until they can develop their own defense forces, they will in no way accept a mercenary alternative to such troops in the meantime, nor would they perceive collaborators who were brought into both countries by the invading armies themselves as turned “nationalists” overnight.

Obama’s strategy as was announced on the inauguration of his administration was to exit U.S. combatants from Iraq and move these same combating resources to Afghanistan to solve his military manpower problem, but exit from Iraq is proving untenable and the war on Afghanistan is proving unsustainable without immediate commitment of substantially more troops.

Obama has now to choose between two failures, either a failure in Iraq or a failure in Afghanistan, because a “successful outcome” in the latter theater “is going to require a major U.S. reinforcement,” but “fast redeployment in Afghanistan hurts us in Iraq. It comes at a price … at the cost of the risk of failure in another theater (i.e. Iraq),” according to Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow with the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) for defense policy on March 2.

Obama is now obviously stuck between what he described as the U.S. “war of choice” on Iraq and the U.S. “war of necessity” on Afghanistan, which practically has become His “war of hard choice” – according to Richard Haas, the CFR president in a recent article. Both wars however are still insistently sustained by Obama whose exit strategy from both is still blurred in Iraqi and Afghani eyes as much as in US eyes.

Viewed from the battle grounds of the U.S. global wars on terrorism or otherwise, which ironically are only fought in the Middle East, Obama’s strategies seem indecisive and confused. On Iraq, he pledged in his UN speech to “ending the war” and “to remove all American troops by the end of 2011,” but “responsibly,” until the Iraqis “transition to full responsibility for their future,” which practically translates to a long term strategic commitment.

Meanwhile on Afghanistan he is still wavering and meandering not to rush to a sizeable reinforcement to avoid what Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in country, warned against in a confidential report, recently leaked: “Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it .. The overall effort is deteriorating. We run the risk of strategic defeat.” But Obama will not yet surge troops there until he has “the right strategy” and will not send “young men and women into battle, without having absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be.”

Nine months in office, Obama is still wondering: "Are we doing the right thing?" "Are we pursuing the right strategy?" If Obama has yet to decide on a strategy on Afghanistan, in hindsight, one might ask: why did he send there seventeen thousand additional troops earlier this year!

For too long now the Middle East has been paying in blood for U.S. experimental and contradictory foreign policies, which ostensibly seek peace where war is the only option to make the Israeli occupying power, for instance, succumb to a just and lasting peace in the Palestinian – Israeli conflict, and launch war where peace is only attainable through an end to U.S. – led wars as the cases are in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, Obama at the UN on Wednesday seemed poised to promise the Middle East more of the same when he pledged he “will never apologize” for defending the interests “of my nation,” and yet lamented “anti-Americanism,” which is exacerbated by sustaining such counterproductive policies.

-- Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Bir Zeit, West Bank of the Israeli – occupied Palestinian territories.

Where will Israel be in five years?

“The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.” - Albert Einstein, signatory to Letters to the Editor, New York Times, December 4, 1948.

Online reports of a study by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency cast doubt over the survival of Israel beyond the next two decades. Regardless of the validity of the report, with what is now known about the costs in blood and treasure that the U.S. -Israeli relationship has imposed on the U.S. , its key ally, Israel could fall within five years.

For more than six decades, American support for Israel has relied on the ability of pro-Israelis to dominate U.S. media, enabling Tel Aviv to put a positive spin on even its most extreme behavior, including its recent massacre in Gaza. With access to online news coverage, that Zionist bias is becoming apparent and the real facts transparent.

Though Americans seldom show a strong interest in foreign affairs, that too is changing. While few of them grasp the subtleties of one-state versus two-state proposals, many have seen online the impact of a murderous Israeli assault on Palestinian civilians that was timed between Christmas and the inauguration of Barack Obama.

The leaders of the 9-11 Commission acknowledged that its members would not allow testimony on the impetus for that attack. Yet the report confirmed that the key motivation was the U.S. -Israeli relationship. With access to online news, more Americans are asking why they are forced to support a colonial Apartheid government.

With the election of yet another extremist Israeli government led by yet another right-wing Likud Party stalwart, it’s clear that Tel Aviv intends to preclude peace by continuing to build more settlements. With that stance, Israel not only pushed Barack Obama into a corner, it also forced U.S. national security to make a key strategic decision: Is Israel a credible partner for peace? By any criteria, the answer must be a resounding “No.”

That inescapable conclusion leaves Americans with few options. After all, the U.S. is largely responsible for the legitimacy granted this extremist enclave in May 1948 when Harry Truman, a Christian-Zionist president, extended nation-state recognition. He did so over the strenuous objections of Secretary of State George Marshall, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the fledgling CIA and the bulk of the U.S. diplomatic corps.

By December 1948, a distinguished contingent of Jewish scientists and intellectuals warned in The New York Times that those leading the effort to establish a Jewish state bear “the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party.” Albert Einstein joined concerned Jews who cautioned Americans “not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.”

Only in the past few weeks has the momentum emerged to subject Israel to the same external pressures that were brought to bear against Apartheid South Africa. After more than six decades of consistent behavior—and clear evidence of no intent to change—activists coalesced around the need to boycott Israeli exports, divest from Israeli firms and impose sanctions against Israel akin to those it seeks against others.

The focal point for peace in the Middle East should not be those nations that do not have nuclear weapons but the one nation that does. Absent external pressure, Israeli behavior will not change. Absent pressure—and likely force—applied by the U.S. as the nation that has long enabled this behavior, Colonial Zionism will continue to pose a threat to peace. Occupying powers are not known to voluntarily relinquish lands they occupy. Likewise for their readiness to surrender nuclear arms.

• An end to Jewish Fascism?

The key issue need no longer be a subject of endless debate. There must be a one-state solution consistent with democratic principles of full equality. Informed Americans are no longer willing to support a theocratic state in which full citizenship is limited to those deemed “Jewish” (whatever that means). If local birth rates suggest an eventual end to the “Jewish state,” then so be it. Why wait two decades when this nightmare can be drawn to a close in less than five years?

Forget about a return to pre-1967 borders, instead return to pre-1948 borders. Designate Jerusalem an international city under UN protection and dispatch multi-national forces to maintain peace. Palestinians should have a right of return, including the ability to recover properties from which they fled under an assault by Jewish terrorists. If Colonial Zionists (aka settlers) want compensation for “their” property, let them seek restitution from the Diaspora that encouraged their unlawful occupation.

Those who consider themselves “Jewish” can remain as part of an inclusive democracy. Or they can depart. Americans must consider how many of these extremists it wants to welcome to a nation already straining under an immigration burden. A reported 500,000 Israelis hold U.S. passports. With more than 300,000 dual-citizens residing in California alone, that state may require a referendum on just how many Zionists it wishes to receive. Likewise for Russia from which many “Jews” fled, including some 300,000 Russian émigrés who support the Likud Party but have yet to be certified as Jewish.

Zionists originally saw Argentina and Uganda as desirable venues to establish their enterprise. They may wish to apply there for resettlement. The question of why Palestinians (or Californians) should bear the cost of a problem created by Europeans six decades ago is one that Tel Aviv has yet to answer except by citing ancient claims that it insists should take precedence over two millennia of Palestinian residence.

By withdrawing Israel’s status as a legitimate “state,” those Jews long appalled by the behavior of this extremist enclave can no longer be portrayed as guilty by association. That long overdue shift in status is certain to benefit the broader Jewish community. By shutting down Israel’s nuclear arms program and destroying its nuclear arsenal, the world can be spared the key impetus now driving a nuclear arms race in the region.

Unless pro-Israelis can create another crisis by inducing an invasion of Iran (or a race war), Americans will soon realize that only one “state” had the means, motivation, opportunity and stable nation-state intelligence required to fix the intelligence that led the U.S. to invade Iraq consistent with the expansionist goals of Colonial Zionism.

Intelligence now working its way to transparency will soon confirm that, but for Zionists within the U.S. government, 9-11 could have been prevented and war in Iraq avoided. To date, this extremism has been enabled by a series of weak U.S. presidents. For the U.S. to restore its credibility requires that it not only lead the effort to shut down the Zionist enterprise but that it also share responsibility for its behavior to date.

-- Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association, Democracy at Risk and The Ownership Solution. See www.criminalstate.com.

Race to save Sumatra quake buried

Local television showed destroyed buildings in a town near the epicentre Rescue teams have resumed the desperate search for survivors following a devastating earthquake on the Indonesian island of Sumatra. Many people are thought to be trapped under rubble after the 7.6-magnitude quake struck on Wednesday. The death toll already stands at more than 1,000, according to the UN, and officials say they expect it to rise. On Friday, Indonesian Health Minister Siti Fadilah Supari appealed for foreign aid to help the rescue effort. "We need help from foreign countries for evacuation efforts," AFP news agency quoted her as saying. "We need them to provide skilled rescuers with equipment. Our main problem is that there are a lot of victims still trapped in the rubble. We are struggling to pull them out." The quake struck close to the city of Padang, the capital of West Sumatra province, bringing scores of buildings crashing to the ground.Overnight, rescue workers rigged up floodlights and brought in a giant excavator as they tried to find students trapped beneath a collapsed three-storey school. The Jakarta Post reported that 60 children were in the building when it collapsed. Police said on Thursday that nine children had been found alive but that eight bodies had also been pulled from the rubble so far. Part of Padang's main hospital also collapsed and a makeshift open air morgue has been set up to take the growing number of yellow body bags. Operations were being performed in nearby white tents. "We have done hundreds of operations since the earthquake," said Dr Nofli Ichlas. "Some broken bones, some with limbs completely cut off. Fractured skulls, abdominal trauma too." Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono flew to the region after arriving back from the G20 summit on Thursday and stayed overnight to help oversee the rescue. Access 'difficult' The BBC's Alastair Leithead in Sumatra says the main airport has re-opened and aid supplies and rescue teams have been arriving.Yenni Suriyani, of the Catholic Relief Services, told the BBC that her organisation already had one team in the area and hoped to send more rescuers over the weekend. "They've seen many people trapped under the collapsed buildings and many buildings also - including schools and office buildings - already collapsed," she said. "We could not get (to) all of the target area yet because in some areas the access is still difficult." Australia's Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said that up to 100 Australians were unaccounted for after the quake, although there was no evidence so far that any had been killed or injured. Padang is a popular destination for surfers. "I'm always concerned when we've got potentially 100 Australians whose whereabouts we can't vouchsafe for," he told Australian broadcaster ABC. Mr Smith said Australia was sending aid supplies and also a search and rescue team, plus 10 engineering specialists. Other countries around the world are also sending aid, including the UK, South Korea and Japan. US President Barack Obama, who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, also pledged to support the recovery effort. The main earthquake struck at 1716 local time (1016 GMT) on Wednesday, some 85km (55 miles) under the sea, north-west of Padang, the US Geological Survey said. A second quake of 6.8 struck close to Padang at 0852 local time (0152 GMT) on Thursday causing panic but no reports of casualties or damage. Sumatra lies close to the geological fault line that triggered the 2004 Asian tsunami that killed more than 230,000 people in a dozen countries. Geologists have long warned that Padang - a city of 900,000 people - could one day be completely destroyed by an earthquake because of its location.