rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:46 pm**

Robin Cook died on 6 August. This was his final column, published just eight days before <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Worse than irrelevant Replacing Trident is against both our national interests and our international obligations Robin Cook Friday July 29, 2005 The Guardian<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1538378,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/commen...78,00.html</a> Today Richard Norton Taylor takes on the baton. That evil old woman CANNOT be allowed to upgrade her threats against the rest of the world. Just remember you can get rid of Bush, but we can't get rid of the Windsors. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>As the US lowers the nuclear threshold, debate is stifled MPs must follow the lead of the US Senate and demand the information we need to question the replacement of Trident Richard Norton-Taylor Wednesday October 5, 2005 The Guardian The circumstances in which the most powerful country in the world and its closest ally would use nuclear weapons is clearly of vital importance - not only to the potential targets, but also to the people whose leaders would take the decision. Now, just at the time when the use of such weapons appears more, not less, likely, both the Bush administration and the Labour government seem determined to stifle all debate. The Pentagon has just removed from its website a document outlining a new doctrine for joint nuclear operations for the US chiefs of staff. For the first time it sets out specific guidance for US commanders reflecting the Bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. It envisages the use of nuclear weapons to pre-empt a possible attack by a country, terrorist or criminal group with "weapons of mass destruction". It states: "To maximise deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use." The document lists examples of when nuclear weapons could be used. The first is against an enemy using or "intending to use" WMD against the US or its allies. American military commanders could ask the president to use nuclear weapons when there is the threat of an "imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy", to attack "deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons", or to attack the command-and-control "infrastructure" an enemy would use to attack the US or its allies with WMD. The proposed new doctrine significantly lowers the threshold for triggering the use of nuclear weapons, notably America's 480 tactical nuclear bombs in Europe, including the 110 at the US base at Lakenheath in East Anglia. According to Hans Kristensen, a consultant to the US Natural Resources Defence Council, who first noticed the document on the Pentagon website, the doctrine envisages the use of US nuclear weapons in conflicts where they would previously have been considered illegal. "Instead of drastically reducing the role of nuclear weapons, as the Bush administration told the public it would do," he says, "the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism seem to have spooked the administration into continuing and deepening a commitment to some of the most troubling aspects of the nuclear-war-fighting mentality that symbolised the cold war." Dominick Jenkins, a Greenpeace disarmament campaigner who has also analysed the Pentagon document, observes that "where US nuclear policy leads, the UK generally follows". It is crucial, he says, that MPs and the public seriously examine them. Unsurprisingly, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, and General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, play down the significance of the document. At a Pentagon press conference on September 20, Myers denied the doctrine lowered the nuclear threshold, though neither he nor Rumsfeld had yet read it, they said. The Senate armed services committee is not fooled and has asked the Pentagon for a briefing on the new doctrine. In Britain the document has barely been noticed, and the Ministry of Defence is refusing to release any information on the government's plans to maintain a nuclear deterrent and replace the existing Trident missile system. Last week it dismissed requests for MoD documents under the Freedom of Information Act, refusing to say what studies have been made about the costs involved. It refuses even to say what nuclear weapons are for, arguing that it is not in the public interest to publish its assessments about what threats such weapons could deter. The MoD was asked to release studies it has made assessing the threats that might be deterred by a Trident replacement. It replied that though there was a "strong public interest" in the UK having a "credible nuclear deterrent", "it is felt that releasing information about the potential value of a deterrent capability ... could damage national security, and we do not believe there would be any public interest in doing so". The ministry also refuses to disclose the nature of discussions with the US on nuclear-weapons policy on the grounds that "there is a public interest in the UK maintaining strong relations with the US". That would be prejudiced, the MoD argues, if any information about talks with American officials was released. In an interview with the Guardian last month, John Reid, the defence secretary, promised an open debate on any decision to replace Trident. There should be a debate in the country as well as in parliament, he suggested. In light of the blanket refusal to release any papers relating to the matter, a defence official told the Guardian: "There is no need for a debate now. When the time comes there will be a debate." That, presumably, will be when it is too late to make any difference to what the government has already decided, in private with Washington.<hr></blockquote> This is classic Windsor strategy. Use the Treason Felony Act to (selfishly) define the public interest, then prevent any examination by the public as "not in the public interest"

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:26 am**

A couple of letters in reply Our right to know about Trident plans Thursday October 6, 2005 The Guardian <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Richard Norton-Taylor is right to demand the information we need to question the replacement of Trident (As the US lowers the nuclear threshold, debate is stifled, October 5). We have a Freedom of Information Act and had been hoping that the question of the replacement or refurbishment of Trident would be the subject of a free and open public debate. Instead, the Ministry of Defence is refusing to release any information on the issue, even to the extent of refusing to say what threats a nuclear deterrent could deter. It claims, without data, that there is a strong public interest in having a credible nuclear deterrent, and also in maintaining strong relations with the US. How can these claims be made without public debate? Leaving aside all the technicalities, we face a clear issue. Nearly all the arguments used for a British nuclear deterrent could be used equally by any country in the world. This would lead inexorably to a world ruled by mutual threat. But we could have a world ruled by law and mutual understanding. Which do we want? Robert Hinde Chairperson, British Pugwash Group Ian Davis Executive director, British American Security Information Council<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>There is nothing new about the Pentagon document outlining the American policy for the use of nuclear weapons to counter a WMD threat. Geoff Hoon made it clear when he was defence secretary that a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a threat from WMD was already British policy. Surprisingly (or maybe not), there was little opposition to this policy in the Labour party at the time. Christopher Jordan Derby<hr></blockquote> With the way they are handling this I hear loud echoes of the shoot-to-kill policy that Killed the Brazillian. Who would trust Sir Ian Blair with nukes?????

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:43 am**

"Sir Ian Blair with nukes?????" Antiaristo, the thought gives me shivers. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

Posted: **Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:19 pm**

On the other hand, these are the rules for the natives. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>2.30pm Blair links Iran to Iraq blasts Mark Oliver and agencies Thursday October 6, 2005 Tony Blair today said new explosive devices used against British troops in Iraq were suspected to have come from "Iranian elements". Mr Blair warned Tehran the UK would "not be intimidated" into giving up its demand that Iran should abandon its nuclear programme. The prime minister made the UK's suspicions public at a joint Downing Street news conference with the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, at which both leaders stressed the importance of Iraq's referendum on a draft consitution next week. He delivered the warning to Iran after being asked about allegations made by an unnamed British official yesterday that sophisticated new explosives had been given to insurgents in Iraq by Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Iran denies the allegations. Eight British soldiers have died in roadside bombings in Iraq since May. Today, Mr Blair - who admitted it was not certain that there was an Iranian connection - said he had been anxious about new kinds of explosives being used by insurgents "for some time". "What is clear is that there have been new explosive devices used - not just against British troops but elsewhere in Iraq," he said. "The particular nature of those devices leads us either to Iranian elements or to Hizbullah [the Tehran-backed guerilla group based in Lebanon]." Mr Blair told Tehran not to interfere in Iraq, saying British troops were in the country with the suppport of the UN to help in the development of a "soverign, democratic government". He argued it could be the case that the "country next door" to Iraq was anxious about having a democratic neighbour, saying: "What's it going to be like if you have a free Iraq ... run by the rule of law, with a free press ... run by the will of the people?"<hr></blockquote>

rigorousintuition.ca

Queen Demands Upgrade to Protection Racket Enforcement

Queen Demands Upgrade to Protection Racket Enforcement

Re: Queen Demands Upgrade to Protection Racket Enforcement

Re: Queen Demands Upgrade to Protection Racket Enforcement

Nuke Pimp warns off rivals