"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666" (Rev. 13:16-18).
"A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: 'If ANYONE worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name. This calls for patient endurance on the part of THE SAINTS who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus' " (Rev. 14:9-12).
"But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur" (Rev. 19:20).
"And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth. He ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed" (Rev 13:13-15).
"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness" (2 Thess. 2:9-12).
"I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years" (Rev. 20:4-6).
"Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction" (2 Thess. 2:3).
He was given power to make war against THE SAINTS and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast -- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. He who has an ear, let him hear. If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of THE SAINTS" (Rev. 13:7-10).

"They overcame him [the devil] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death" (Rev. 12:11). "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt. 10:28).

The beast is described as a creature that rises up out of the sea in "the last days" and becomes a world dictator and god figure. As the year 2000 nears, many people and especially the Christians are nervously awaiting events that they believe may soon signal the end of the church age, the return of Jesus Christ, and the appearance of the antichrist. The beast is a key part of the Biblical prophecy.

The great army of the north (Russia). the army of the east (China), and the army of the south (Iraq and other Arab states) appear poised and ready to clash with the armies of the west, (NATO Alliance).

It is not that any of these other world nations agree with each other. More that they share a deep hatred for the United States. In our attempt to keep the peace by being a police officer over the remainder of the world, we are perceived as a powerful and dangerous bully. Could this conflict be the prelude to the Biblical battle of Armageddon?

The U. S. military now has a super computer called BEAST (Battle Engagement Area Simulation and Tracking), which is designed to read a computer chip that can be placed in the hand or forehead of every human.

That chip, believe it or not, is called MARCC (Multiple Automated Readout Computer Chip).
America is the target of a nuclear attack conspiracy by Russia & China & the Islamic Arab world, leading to World War III. National security and foreign policy by military experts and top investigative journalists, about international defiance (e.g. communist and rogue/terrorist states) to U.S. hegemonism and U.N. sanctions, and prophetic dreams, visions and prophecies by the Holy Spirit provide overwhelming evidence that the Bible's book of Revelation will soon be fulfilled ...
Please consider this vision indicating that Arafat's removal is THE Sign that immediately precedes the rise of the works of Antichrist...
Before being diverted by wild speculations about the book of Revelation's (chapter 13) first "beast" (also commonly referred to as "Antichrist"), it is vital to understand that the generation we live in is more rational, skeptical, and well-informed than ever before. It is highly unlikely that a charismatic spiritual-political leader will suddenly "pop-up" out of nowhere and quickly convince the world to follow him by the appeal of charisma and even signs and wonders.
The first "beast" of Revelation 13 must be equally influential both spiritually and politically, for we know from Revelation 17:12-18 that ten nations will come under the geopolitical influence of this "beast" in order to attack the "harlot" (see Why did God name America "Mystery Babylon?"). This Antichrist is likely a man who has achieved greatness during a lengthy spiritual-political career, being gradually vindicated by a succession of past, present and future supernatural prophetic signs, which will peak at the opportune time (see Revelation 13:13-15).
Although there are plenty of celebrity figures with great social or symbolic (e.g. Prince Charles, King Hussein) and even spiritual (e.g. Dalai Lama, Deepak Chopra) influence, they have little or no geo- (i.e. worldwide) political influence. As the leader of the world's greatest superpower, President Bush's spiritual influence hardly seems to go beyond his personal faith -- all his attempts to do so would are dismissed as politically motivated, and in violation of Church-State separation. However, as of 2004, President Bush appears to be on a Holy Crusade (mission from God) to 'free' all the rest of the countries in the world to a "New World Order" in a huge democratic coalition. He is in mental control of millions of people who think just like him.  If he wins the election in 2004, he will be even more powerful that he was in 2000 - following in his Daddy's footsteps - and will feel justified that he was 'right' and continue in his quest to control how the rest of the world thinks along with his secret/hidden Illuminati controllers.

To date, the Vatican State (Holy See) has been the only religio-political power in the world, making Roman Catholicism the only world religion to have a political role in world affairs. During his Pontificate, Pope John Paul II has made historical political (i.e. diplomatic) and religious amends in relations with countries and religious leaders all over the world -- he contributed to the "liberation" of the U.S.S.R., made a historical conciliatory millennial tour to Israel and Arab nations, and has made historical progress in pacifying Cuba's and most recently China's communistic hostility towards Catholicism, all within the missionary context of "consecrating" these nations to the "Immaculate Heart of Mary." 

On the other hand, the Arab Nations and their Muslim radical factions seem to be taking on a larger and larger role. This bears watching closely as a coalition of Arab factions can set off Armageddon. 


10-13-04 - DREAM - I was at home, talking on the telephone to my Father. He said they were moving to 1715 W. Clark St.

I thought that was intriguing since I had been inside that house when I was a kid and knew my way around inside that house intimately.  (I grew up during WW II)

My Father said he had bought the house from my brother John. I wondered if my brother was buying neighborhood houses for investment purposes.

So I went to visit my Mother and Father and my Mother gave me the key to the kitchen door. It was a really thick key and I heard on that radio while I was standing on the porch that some keys are really guns.  Sure enough, when I looked at the key closer, the key came apart in two pieces. Part of the key was a gun and part of it was a military type radio.

I took this stuff into the house and put the radio on the table, attached it to a battery and turned it on. That radio appeared to have lots of stations on it, but there was a broadcast on only one station. The station was playing music, but I knew that in time of emergency it would be broadcasting information and instructions of what to do.

I talked to my brother John on the telephone then and he asked me if the radio was working. I told him that it played only one station - and then only in one direction. 

I started to wake up and I had a vision that said in LARGE letters: 



War and society have been intertwined throughout human history, but during the 20th century the relations among them have been especially visible. The two "world wars," the many regional wars, consciousness about partisan and guerrilla wars, the development of "city killer" nuclear weapons, arrogation of power to the centralized state -- these and other influences have heightened awareness of military institutions and actions. The extent to which war has impact on society and the degree to which societies shape their military institutions and "ways of war" have thus been key issues for both popular and professional consideration


2003- Iraq
2001 -Afghanistan
1998 -Iraq
1995 -Bosnia

1990-1991 Persian Gulf
1961-1973 Vietnam War
1950-1953 Korean War
1941-1945 World War II
1917-1918 World War I
1916-1917 Mexican Punitive Expedition (National Guardsmen led by Gen. John J. Pershing went to Mexico in search of "Pancho" Villa.
1914 Tampico and Vera Cruz Incidents  in Mexico
1900 Boxer Revolt (China)
1899-1902 Philippine Insurrection
1898 Spanish-American War
1861-1865 American Civil War
1857-1858 Utah War
1848-1858 Third Seminole War
1846-1848 Mexican War
1841 Door Rebellion (Rhode Island)
1836 Texas War of Independence
1839 Aroostook War (land dispute between Canadian lumbermen and American settlers who had been granted lands within the Madaueskan area of Maine)
1835-1842 Florida War; also known as the Second Seminole War
1831-1832 Black Hawk War
1780s-1890s Indian Wars (includes in addition to those listed separately, Battle of Tippecanoe, Indiana in 1811;  Navajo Wars in New Mexico and Arizona, 1846-1868; and Yakima Wars in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, 1855-1858; Sioux and Cheyenne Wars in the Dakotas and Montana, 1866-1890; Apache Wars in Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico in 1870-1886; Modoc War in California in 1872-1873; and the Nez Perce Wars in Idaho and Montana in 1877
1817-1819 Seminole War 
1812-1815 War of 1812
1801-1805 War with the Barbary Pirates
1798-1800 Quasi-war with France  (Atlantic Coast and West Indies)
1794 Whiskey Rebellion (Pennsylvania)
1786-1787 Shays Rebellion (Massachusetts)
1775-1783 Revolutionary War
1774 Lord Dunmore's War (in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio
1771 War of the Regulators (North Carolina)
1763-1764 Pontiac's Rebellion  (fought mostly with militia from Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia;  in Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania)
1754-1763 French and Indian (Seven Years) War
1760-1761 Cherokee Uprising (Carolinas)
1744-1748 King George's War (War of Austrian Succession)
1739-1742 War of Jenkins' Ear (Georgia and Florida)
1715-1716 Yamasee War (South Carolina and Georgia)
1702-1713 Queen Anne's War (War of the Spanish Succession)
1689-1697 King William's War (War of the League of Augsburg)
1676 Bacon's Rebellion (Virginia)
1675-1676 King Philip's War (fought mostly by local militiamen from Connecticut, Massachusetts  and Rhode Island) 


1715 - Yamasee  War

(both: yăm´esē, yäm´-)  Yamasi , or Yemasee , Native North Americans whose language belongs to the Muskogean branch of the Hokan-Siouan linguistic stock. In the late 16th cent., when Spanish missions were established among them, the Yamasee lived in S Georgia and N Florida. They remained under Spanish rule until 1687, when they revolted and fled to South Carolina. The Yamasee were initially friendly toward the English, but in 1715 war broke out and they massacred more than 200 white settlers. Driven out of South Carolina, the Yamasee returned to Florida, where they became allies of the Spanish against the English. In 1727 their village near St. Augustine was attacked and destroyed by the English. Their population declined, and eventually they assimilated with the Seminole and the Creek.

The Yamasee Indians were part of the Muskhogean language group. Their traditional homelands lay in present-day northern Florida and southern Georgia. The advent of the Spanish in the late 16th century forced the Yamasee to migrate north into what would become South Carolina. Relations between the tribe and English settlers in that region were generally positive during the latter half of the 17th century.

Not surprisingly, problems between the races developed. The continuing influx of white settlers put pressure on Indian agricultural and hunting lands. The relationship was further complicated in that the tribe had become dependent on English firearms and other manufactured items, and had incurred a large debt, typically payable in deerskins. White fur traders acted on their displeasure by enslaving a number of Yamasee women and children to cover portions of the outstanding debt.

In the spring of 1715, the Yamasee formed a confederation with other tribes and struck at the white settlements in South Carolina. Several hundred settlers were killed, homes burned and livestock slaughtered. The frontier regions were emptied; some fled to the relative safety of North Carolina and others pushed on to even more secure Virginia. Charleston also received large numbers of frightened settlers.

At the height of the fighting, it appeared that the tribal confederation's overwhelming numerical superiority would end in the white settlements' complete destruction in the region. This would have been a virtual certainty if the confederacy had successfully drawn the Cherokee into their cause. Instead, the Cherokee gave in to the lure of English weapons and other goods, and chose to aid the Carolinians. In a further stroke of good fortune, the besieged settlers also managed to gain support from Virginia — an event not assured in this age of intense colonial rivalries.

The tide turned against the Yamasee, who were slowly pushed south through Georgia back into their ancestral lands in northern Florida. There, the tribe was virtually annihilated by protracted warfare with the Creeks, but some members were absorbed by the Seminole.

The Yamasee War took a heavy toll in South Carolina. Such terror had been instilled in the minds of the frontiersmen that it would take nearly 10 years for resettlement to occur in many areas. The warfare also brought a sharp change to the region's economy. Originally, farming had been the settlers' primary occupation, but the livestock supply had been so drastically depleted that many farms disappeared. In their absence, enterprising South Carolinians turned to the forests as a source of naval stores (tar, pitch and turpentine) and soon developed a lucrative trade with England. Later, the economy would develop rice and indigo as its primary products.



China to Buy 8 More Russian Submarines

By John Pomfret
Tuesday, June 25, 2002

BEIJING, June 24 -- China has begun negotiations with Russia to buy eight more submarines in a $1.6 billion deal that will significantly boost its ability to blockade Taiwan and challenge U.S. naval supremacy in nearby seas, Western and Russian sources said.

Four Russian producers are bidding to build the diesel-powered Project 636 Kilo-class vessels, which will be equipped with Klub long-range, anti-ship missile systems, defense experts said.

China has already purchased four Kilo-class subs from Russia, including two Project 636 models. The deal for additional submarines is part of a $4 billion weapons package that Russia has committed to provide China over the next four to five years. Included in the package are two more Sovremenny-class destroyers, adding to a pair China has already received, a new batch of S300 PMU2 anti-aircraft missiles and 40 Su-30MKK fighter-bombers.

The $4 billion sale cements Russia's place as China's biggest military trading partner, far ahead of Israel and such former Soviet states as Ukraine. It also cements China's place as the world's biggest weapons importer, underscoring its race with Taiwan for military supremacy across the Taiwan Strait.

China became the world's biggest importer of weapons in 2000, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It maintained the No. 1 position last year, mostly through purchases of ships and combat aircraft worth close to $3 billion, more than twice any other buyer's acquisitions.

The United States is Taiwan's main military supplier. In April 2001, the Bush administration approved a multibillion dollar package that included eight diesel submarines, 30 AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters, 12 P-3C submarine-hunting aircraft, four Kidd-class destroyers, long-range radar systems and Patriot III missiles. The U.S. submarine deal is uncertain, however, because the United States no longer makes or designs diesel-powered subs and two nations that do, Germany and the Netherlands, have refused to allow the United States to use their designs or manufacturers.

The Chinese submarine deal will "very significantly enhance [the Chinese] navy's ability to influence events in the East China Sea," said Bernard Cole, an expert on the Chinese navy at the National War College in Washington, "first, by enforcing a blockade against Taiwan, if Beijing adopts that course of action, and also by posing a serious problem for opposing naval forces attempting to operate in the area."

The deal reflects China's double-barreled military modernization strategy. On one hand, the strategy seeks to enable its army to recover Taiwan by force, if necessary. On the other, it wants to deter any intervention by the United States, which has committed itself to Taiwan's defense under the vaguely worded Taiwan Relations Act.

Two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups faced down Chinese threats to the island in 1996 after China fired missiles across the strait during training exercises. Assuming China could detect the U.S. carriers in the future, such a response would be riskier once the new submarines are operational, defense experts said.

The deal, first reported on June 7 by the Kanwa Intelligence Review, a publication based in Canada and focused on the Chinese military, has prompted competition among Russian manufacturers to win the contract, although China's desire to have swift delivery means that work will occur at several plants simultaneously.

Russian press reports have identified the contenders as the Admiralteyskie Verfi shipbuilding plant based in St. Petersburg, the Komsomolsk-on-Amur shipbuilding plant, the Krasnoye Sormovo shipbuilding plant in Nizhny Novgorod and the Sevmash shipbuilding plant based in Severodvinsk.

China's own submarine manufacturing program has encountered difficulty, especially a multibillion dollar program to develop the Song class guided-missile submarine. China tried to develop the Song to replace its 1962-vintage Romeo-class attack submarines.

According to Jane's Defense Weekly, the first Song, built with assistance from Israel and others, started sea trials in 1995, but proved a failure. A second substantially modified Song began sea trials in early 2000, but analysts say these are far behind schedule and have yet to be completed.

"If Beijing is going to buy eight additional Kilos, it means that their domestic program to build Songs is, in fact, in trouble, which would certainly not surprise me," Cole said.

A second problem associated with China's purchase of the Kilos concerns its ability to use the submarines properly. China bought four Kilo-class submarines during the 1990s, two of the export version and two of the more capable Project 636 version produced by Russia for its own navy. The Chinese navy has experienced operating problems because of initially inadequate crew training, and more consistently because of certain material problems, such as troublesome batteries.

The new Kilo will be equipped with an anti-ship missile system with a range of 140 miles. But China would need to develop the ability to see "over the horizon" to use the weapons properly, defense experts said. Most submarines can only "see" a few miles without the aid of satellites, other submarines, airplanes or ships.

"China still cannot find ships at sea," a senior U.S. defense official said. "Over-the-horizon targeting escapes them. The United States built an open ocean surveillance capability in the 1960s. China has all the tools to build its own but it has not."

In 2003 China had 69 submarines, only one of which was a ballistic missile carrier. China had 63 principal surface ships, including 21 destroyers and 42 frigates, and over 360 patrol and coastal combatants.


In 2004 - Russia has 74 submarines of various types: See: http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/russia/submar.htm

The Russian Federation also had including 13 ballistic missile boats, 32 principal surface ships, 1 aircraft carrier, 7 cruisers, 14 destroyers, 88 patrol and coastal combatants, 22 amphibious ships, and about 435 support vessels. 

The Soviet military tested nuclear weapons on the islands of Novaya Zemlya in the Arctic Ocean, which was their second testing site after Semipalatinsk (now Semey), Kazakhstan. Nuclear reactors and wastes were dumped into the Barents and Kara seas of the far north, and in far eastern Siberia. Dumping of nuclear wastes in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) continued until 1993. The disposal of nuclear submarines and nuclear waste is still a problematic issue. Although a number of nuclear submarines have been decommissioned, most are still docked at Russian ports as a result of a lack of money and facilities for storing nuclear wastes.


In 2003 the U.S. Navy had 72 submarines (including 18 ballistic missile submarines) and 129 principal surface ships (12 aircraft carriers, 27 cruisers, 55 destroyers, and 35 frigates). The Navy also had 41 major amphibious vessels, 200 landing craft, and 100 support ships. The Navy’s strategic sealift force consisted of 62 active vessels, including 32 prepositioned ships loaded with combat equipment and supplies. 


Great Britain's Royal Navy: The present complement of submarines within the RN is; 4 in number SSBNs, based at Faslane on the West coast of Scotland, approx. 25 miles from Glasgow, and 11 SSNs split between Faslane and Devonport in Plymouth.

Current Royal Navy deployments are vast, and encompass much of the world's oceans. In the Atlantic area, the RN presence is considerable. Atlantic Patrol Task (North) is normally carried out by an escort vessel which patrols the Caribbean and North Atlantic areas. Atlantic Patrol Task (South) constitutes the RN's commitment to the South Atlantic and West African areas which is comprised of an escort vessel accompanied by an RFA vessel. Additionally, a vessel is permanently deployed as the Falkland Islands Guardship, invariably tending to be a Castle-class patrol vessel. Also, HMS Endurance is deployed for half the year as the Ice Patrol Ship.

Control of the Military in a Democracy


Dr. Andrzej Karkoszka, George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies

FROM: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pfpdc/documents/2000/05-00_oberammergau/Karkoszka.htm

1. The term: “democratic control”

Control = oversight, check, direction, but should also include “protection”, “guidance”, “cooperation”.

Encompasses also all aspects of civil-military relations within a state.

Democratic control = governmental direction of military activities and parliamentary oversight of both the government and the military.

Democratic control over military /and other institutions of power inside a state/:

  • taken as imperative for a liberal democracy;

  • is the best means to assure the proper balance of resources between the military and other domains of a state, including other elements of national security institutions;

  • obligates states espousing democracy and other basic values of democratic states;

  • foundation of NATO /preamble and Art. 2 of the Washington Treaty/;

  • 1994 Budapest OSCE Declaration on the code of conduct of states: “ Each participating state will at all times provide for and maintain effective guidance to and control of its military, paramilitary and security forces by constitutionally established authorities vested with democratic legitimacy…”

  • PfP Framework Document of 10 Jan. 1994, point 3a: “assuring democratic control over the armed forces”;

  • NATO’s five criteria for future members /”Study on Enlargement’, 1996/:

    • democratic system of government

    • free market economy

    • resolution of disputes with neighbors

    • contribution to NATO’s military effectiveness

    • democratic control over military.

Democratic control over the military ensures the transparency of security and military policy for the own society thus assuring its support for that policy. The same transparency is vital for the foreign and security policy of the state – it assures the neighboring states on the direction of that policy and makes the “defensive sufficiency” a credible policy, promoting mutual confidence and helping in prevention of arms races.

2. The Substance of the Problem:

A state needs to have a protection from an outside threat by means of its military force – thus the force must be strong, effective, ready, unified. Once the state created the force it needs legal and political protection against this most disciplined, organized, and powerful institution, to prevent the loosening of control over the activities of that force. Historical experiences of military coups, meddling in the internal and external affairs of the legal supreme bodies of states, influencing budgetary debates in favor of military wishes, dictating nominations to the highest posts – indicate seriousness of the issue.

There are various ways to prevent “politicization” of the military. Example: S. Huntington “The Soldier and the State”- professionalism of the military to be the best remedy, proven in the well-established democracies.

A full accountability of the military needed:

  • in the use of force, both internally and externally, in war-time and peace-time,

  • in the execution of national security strategy /here: level or preparedness, procurement processes, military expenditures, appropriateness of the existing structures/,

  • in the usage of resources by the military,

  • in the role played by the military in the society,

  • in the way the military institutions deal with the soldiers.

Jeff Simon’s requirements for democratic control:

  • clear legal division of authority in a state’s executive – president/government, prime minister/minister of defense, minister/CHOD,

  • parliamentary oversight /especially through the defense budget/,

  • government’s oversight of the military structures through civilians within the MoD,

  • restoration of prestige of the officer corps /requirement characteristic for the post-communist societies/,

  • informed public debate.

3. What “Model” for a Democratic Control of the Military?

Every state is a different case because of its particular history, traditional role of the military, the record of military institutions and the individual persons in uniform. This historical background shapes the formal/legal arrangements, sometimes justifying a political role of the military in state’s policy.

Soviet Union – strong political control of the military by the communist party, executed by the Main Political Administration and KGB; the military used for the purposes of one single party. To gain the support of the military the party permitted the militarisation of the society and national economy, and engaged the state in a militaristic foreign policy.

France –the military in a special position, deciding together with the state executive many issues reserved in other states to the parliament /latest changes in the military structures and military strategy/.

United Kingdom – governmental decisions, prepared in cooperation with the military, debated by the parliament post-facto.

Germany – very strong parliamentary control over any action, dealing with the military issues.

Ergo: there exist no unified model of the democratic control, but “we know the horse when we see it”.

4. Requirements of Democratic Control over the Military

Competent civilians – educated, trained, informed. The biggest obstacle in implementation of the democratic control in the post-communist states – lack of civilian cadres to perform within the military structures.

Comprehensive laws – usually transformed in a piece-meal approach, building on the existing old legal norms. One of the difficult issues – how to adapt the laws to the realities of free market economies /competitive procurement and service contracting, execution of financial regulation at the lower levels of military structures, financing of social benefits etc./.

Transparency in all branches – from state’s administration to military structures - without compromising the requirements of secrecy or confidentiality. Most difficult – control over the military intelligence.

Key element: parliamentary control. Here the interests of citizens-taxpayers are protected and represented. Functions of parliamentary control:

  • checking whether the resources allocated for defense are commensurate with, and spent according to, the national interests; more specifically – how the resources respond to the national defense and security strategy /often also legislated/,

  • preserving transparency of the budgetary processes for public scrutiny,

  • enforcing the efficiency of expenditures and their rationalization,

  • establishing a close linkage between the armed forces and the electorate,

  • helping to explain state’s defense needs to the society,

  • forging better cohesion within the alliance.

5. Specificity of the post-Soviet and post-Warsaw Pact States

Establishing the democratic control over the military – part of the over-all process of democratization of the states and societies and, simultaneously, a part and parcel of the general reform of the military system. Many elements of this process must be performed parallel and in very difficult financial conditions:

  • introduction of new legal norms – especially on the use of force and on civilian oversight,

  • changing the military structures – substantial reduction in strengths, redeployment of units, reducing the command structures etc.,

  • organizational and functional changes – redefinition of the role of the General Staffs, transfer of authority to civilian departments,

  • introduction of the new budgetary processes – DRIMMS, PPB methods, negotiating within the parliament,

  • procurement – away from the political decision-making into free-market methods,

  • redefinition of the role and place of the military intelligence.

Usual conditions for execution of national security and defense policy in the states of the region:

  • objectives never absolutely certain,

  • methods /ways/ often competing,

  • resources always inadequate or scarce,

  • time always short,

  • political circumstances rarely beneficial.

Ergo: all this cannot be left only to the military, it must be based on interagency and systematic processes, open to the society /media/.


Pentagon with Washington Monument in Background

The Pentagon: Headquarters of the United States Department of ...
About The Pentagon general information and history of the Pentagon. Tour Information background information, kinds of tours, registration ...
The Pentagon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Pentagon. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Pentagon is the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense. ...


Intelligence: The Pentagon—Spying in America?

Cheryl Hatch / AP
Mission creep? 
A new bill could expand the Pentagon's ability to gather intelligence inside the United States

By Michael Isikoff
Investigative Correspondent

June 21 issue -2004- Last February, two Army counterintelligence agents showed up at the University of Texas law school and demanded to see the roster from a conference on Islamic law held a few days earlier. Their reason: they were trying to track down students who the agents claimed had been asking "suspicious" questions. "I felt like I was in 'Law & Order'," said one student after being grilled by one of the agents. The incident provoked a brief campus uproar, and the Army later admitted the agents had exceeded their authority. But if the Pentagon has its way, the Army may not have to make such amends in the future. Without any public hearing or debate, NEWSWEEK has learned, Defense officials recently slipped a provision into a bill before Congress that could vastly expand the Pentagon's ability to gather intelligence inside the United States, including recruiting citizens as informants.

Ever since the 1970s, when Army intel agents were caught snooping on antiwar protesters, military intel agencies have operated under tight restrictions inside the United States. But the new provision, approved in closed session last month by the Senate Intelligence Committee, would eliminate one big restriction: that they comply with the Privacy Act, a Watergate-era law that requires government officials seeking information from a resident to disclose who they are and what they want the information for. The CIA always has been exempt—although by law it isn't supposed to operate inside the United States. The new provision would now extend the same exemption to Pentagon agencies such as the Defense Intelligence Agency—so they can help track terrorists. A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee says the provision would allow military intel agents to "approach potential sources and collect personal information from them" without disclosing they work for the government. The justification: "Current counter terrorism operations," the report explains, which require "greater latitude ... both overseas and within the United States." DIA officials say they mainly want the provision so they can more easily question American businessmen and college students who travel abroad. But Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman concedes the provision will also be helpful in investigating suspected terrorist threats to military bases and contractors inside the United States. "It's a new world we live in," he says. "We have to do what is necessary for force protection." Among those pushing for the provision, sources say, were officials at northcom, the new Colorado-based command set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to oversee "homeland defense." Pentagon lawyers insist agents will still be legally barred from domestic "law enforcement." But watchdog groups see a potentially alarming "mission creep." "This... is giving them the authority to spy on Americans," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, a group frequently critical of the war on terror. "And it's all been done with no public discussion, in the dark of night."

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer September 3, 2001 Monday

Leading Scientists See Fatal Flaw in Missile Defenses

By Elizabeth Sullivan

The United States last week took its first step on the path to building missile defenses. A Pentagon contractor began felling trees in Alaska for five missile interceptor silos for which ground is to be broken next spring. President Bush says these silos will be part of a system of missiles and lasers that can shoot down enemy missiles, to protect Americans from nuclear blackmail or catastrophic attack by rogue states.

The Pentagon plans to use the Alaska missiles for expanded tests, to simulate a real attack. But the decision to build the silos is turning the soft rumble of scientific dissent into a roar. Many of the nation's leading physicists now say that the missile-seeking technology at the core of the proposed system won't work in a real attack.

They contend that the government has underestimated the likelihood that rogue states will use warhead-masking decoys, such as Mylar balloons or wire chaff, multiple decoys or decoys that mimic the appearance or heat signature of the real warhead. If that happens, the critics say, there is no evidence that our defensive missiles will be able to pick out the actual weapon.

"I think we owe it to ourselves to examine all technology that can be used for defense against missile attack," said Lawrence Krauss, head of the Case Western Reserve University physics department and author of "The Physics of Star Trek." "But there's a 'can't-do' principle" that drives good science, he said. "And in this regard, the 'law of physics' that I think is important is that any defensive system can inevitably be defeated by countermeasures that are simpler and cheaper."

Pentagon officials and missile-defense proponents acknowledge that tests carried out so far haven't replicated a real missile attack. That's not the objective, they say. "We're not testing a missile-defense system. We're testing missile-defense technology," said Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, spokesman for the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

However, the Pentagon has tacitly recognized the intractability of the decoy problem with its latest proposal to "layer" attempts to shoot down an incoming missile all along its trajectory, including just after launch and right before impact. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says this "layered defense" at the core of a proposed 57 percent increase in the missile-defense budget will make it much tougher for an enemy to use effective decoys.

The core concept of ground-based missile defenses is this: to fire into space a garbage-can-sized bullet atop an intercept missile as soon as warning comes of an enemy missile launch. Ideally, five bullets, or "kill vehicles," would be fired for each incoming warhead. The kill vehicles then have about six minutes to find the incoming warhead and use only the force of impact to smash it to smithereens. To do that, the kill vehicle must select the warhead and not a decoy.

Philip Coyle, who ran the Pentagon's technology testing office for the last six years and is now with the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank, likened this to "trying to hit a hole-in-one when the hole is going 15,000 miles an hour and the green is covered with other holes that look just alike."

At least $54 billion has already been spent on creating missile defenses. The final price tag could be more than triple that amount. The effort involves developing scores of new technologies at once, ranging from new infrared "eyes" radars and computer programs that can track and target the incoming warhead to a new generation of low-orbit satellites.

That complexity means doing simple things first, government scientists say. "You have to crawl before you walk," said Bill Davis, an Alabama-based Pentagon consultant who has worked on ballistic missiles since the 1950s. The Pentagon says that's why its recent missile tests have used only a single balloon decoy that stands out because it is so much larger, brighter and of a different temperature than the prototype warhead.

But many scientists say that's tantamount to rigging the last four intercept tests, two of which scored hits. The failures both came because of unrelated technical problems. Ted Postol, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist and former Pentagon missile scientist who has analyzed Pentagon data from a 1997 flyby test, said none of the 10 decoys used in that test could be distinguished from the warhead. After that test, Postol said, the Pentagon simply pared the complexity and number of decoys, from 10 to one.

Lehner said more decoys will be added in future tests. In the meantime, he said, the Pentagon is refining its decoy-detecting abilities using computer simulations. But he questioned how likely it was that rogue states such as North Korea, Iran or Iraq could add complex or heavy decoys to a big, bulky warhead and manage to heft all that weight the thousands of miles required to reach a U.S. city. "A rogue nation is fairly limited just by what they're technologically capable of doing," Lehner said.

The American Physical Society, which with 42,000 members is the nation's largest professional physicists' organization, has called for a delay in building missile defenses until the decoy problem can be solved. But decoys aren't the only potential glitch, according to the critics, who include 50 Nobel laureates. Instead of using a warhead hidden by decoys, an enemy could fire a shotgun blast of bomblets at the United States, said retired Case Western Reserve University physics professor Benjamin Segall. A limited missile defense shield would not be able to shoot down 100 bomblets filled with deadly anthrax before they reached a U.S. city.

Moreover, all four intercept tests used a radio beacon on the warhead to track it from the moment of launch and then steer the interceptor bullet to within 500 miles of the warhead. Lehner said the beacon was needed because the radar and satellites intended to do the same thing haven't been built yet. The beacon is not a homing device and doesn't rig the test, he said. But critics say such "simulations" could prove better than the real thing, since the real thing remains on the drawing boards.

"Whether the actual data from the satellite would be as good as the simulated data is now, we're obviously several years and several billion dollars away from answering that question," said John Pike, who runs GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based watchdog group.

Then there is the question of what's driving the decision to start building missile silos next spring. Lehner said the silos would answer scientific concern by improving test realism, including increasing the number, range and complexity of tests.

But the five silos to be built at Fort Greely, Alaska, cannot be used for testing, since the rocket boosters might drop onto populated areas. About 3,000 people live near the old Army base and nearby town of Delta Junction. Wild buffalo herds still roam in the heavily forested area, about 100 miles southeast of Fairbanks. The interceptors will be fired from Fort Greely only in case of an actual attack, Lehner said. For tests, they'll be trucked 500 miles southwest to Kodiak Island, where two other silos are to be built, he said.

Lehner said this awkward arrangement is so the Fort Greely silos can be used in case of any future attack. The Pentagon believes North Korea could be within a decade of acquiring a missile that could hit U.S. cities.

But that also means construction could be construed as deployment of a national missile defense system, potentially violating the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. And for that reason, critics say scientific concerns about the workability of the system should be addressed before the first silos are built.

Copyright 2001 Newhouse News Service

Asking the Wrong Question

Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 16:14:12 -0400
Subject: CNN.com - Cheney: Future attack on U.S. 'almost certain' - May 19, 2002
From: John Judge

Cheney: Future attack on U.S. 'almost certain'
CNN, 19 May 2002

Backed into a corner, they threaten us with "intelligence" of an attack that is so vague that it doesn't justify a public warning, but so certain that it is only a matter of time. Investigations must not interfere with the war, they say. The point is, they are answering the wrong question. They began by denying that it was possible to have predicted or imagined such an attack on the United States. This ignores the following:

  • Attacks on those very buildings in NYC had happened by that very network in 1993, and bin Laden was high on their radar screen according to them.
  • The use of planes as weapons was not unknown. An attempt on the Eiffel Tower was foiled; an attack on a building in Russia on behalf of the Chechnyans was carried out; both involved bin Laden's network in the 90s. I was personally told in 1996 by the director of security at the Pentagon building that they had radar on the roof tracking for plane attacks. President Bush was relocated and special security measures were taken at the economic summit in Genoa to prevent a plane attack. A plane had already attacked the White House when Clinton was there.
  • There were warnings to US intelligence in advance of 9-11 from German, Israeli, British and other intelligence agencies of an impending attack, including details about hijacking, using planes as weapons, and the timing of the event. There were US military base alerts the day before. There was a warning to Mayor Willie Brown in San Francisco not to fly that day from his security team.

They have spent $13 trillion tax dollars since the end of WWII on this military/intelligence complex, and it cannot protect its own headquarters? It can track every electronic communication on earth, crack the codes of the Al Quaeda in advance of 9-11, locate bin Laden's cell phone, but it can't decipher what it all means?

And beyond that question is the more pertinent one hardly anyone is asking.
  • Bush clearly and undeniably had advance knowledge of a terrorist attack on US soil using planes as weapons by 9:05 am on September 11.
  • NORAD had it by 8:45 in an unprecedented simultaneous hijacking of four planes.
  • The Pentagon had it, as did everyone in DC by 9:05 as well.
  • The Pentagon began to evacuate the building, as did the White House and Capitol.

    EVERYONE had advance knowledge of Flight 77 coming towards DC for 40 minutes.
Yet, there was a complete defensive stand-down. Interceptors from distant Langley AFB took off late and flew at subsonic speeds to arrive 5 minutes too late. Planes from nearby Anacostia Naval Air Station, Andrews Air Force Base, and the 73rd Air Wing at Atlantic City, NJ never took off. Scramblers in the air already at 9:05 from Otis AFB turned to target Flight 77 and were called off, despite a formal shoot-down order from Bush/Cheney "moments after" the 9:05 crash -- which had ended any speculation of accident or coincidence or hijacking motives.

By that moment they undeniably knew in advance what was coming and where it was headed. Local news announced that DC was the destination. Surface-to-air missiles at the White House and Pentagon remained sheathed in their silos. Despite the planes having turned off communications with ground control towers and their identifying transponders (which also shuts off their own near-range radar screens to avoid mid-air collisions), they were clearly visible to all external radars, they were being tracked by NORAD and DC towers, and they were somehow being navigated directly to their target.

How were they allowed to come into the most restricted air space in the world with no challenge or defense? That is the question that answers both when Bush knew in advance and begs any rational response.

The White House and Pentagon officials have been lying since day one about both advance intelligence knowledge that could have foiled the operation, and about their own ability to prevent, at least, the attack on the Pentagon. Let them answer that.

John Judge
What's Left


March 5, 2003

North Korea no threat to the US

By Stephen Gowans

US and South Korean troops held war games near the North Korean border yesterday. The Pentagon said the war games were aimed at deterring North Korea's military threat. Predictably, the media echoed the Pentagon's charge, though the charge is preposterous. North Korea poses no real military threat to either the United States or Japan, and while in principal it could threaten South Korea, it isn't threatening its neighbor in practice.

Those who had their wits about them asked why a poor country, battered by natural disasters and scarcity, on whose southern border sits 35,000 American troops, and in whose coastal waters lurk nuclear equipped US submarines, would launch an attack on a neighbor it has been trying to build bridges to, especially since an attack would provoke a devastating reply by the formidable US military.

Even more improbable as scenarios go is a missile attack on Japan (which Washington mentions from time to time as if it's a credible scenario), and about as unlikely as you can get is a North Korean missile strike on the United States. No one has yet to advance a single, credible reason why North Korea would undertake the suicidal act of attacking with the few missiles it may or may not have countries that could reply with an annihilating counterstroke.

But that hasn't stopped Washington from continuing to elevate minuscule threats into Himalayan threats, and nor has it stopped the media from uncritically echoing Washington's shameless threat-inflation. While we've haven't arrived there yet, we're only inches away from the point where an announcement that Burundi has received a new shipment of peashooters will send the Pentagon into a histrionic flap, to be followed by Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge issuing a Code Orange warning, along with orders to round up all Burundians living in the United States. Thereupon the media will dutifully warn that Burundi has emerged as a military threat, and Americans will feel their pulses quicken.

Worse still, not only is North Korea not the threat it's painted to be, it's the United States that stands as an immense and looming threat to North Korea, an aggressor whose contempt for the sovereignty of other countries and whose imperial ambitions harkens back to the dark days of the last century when jackboots marched across Europe.

It will be recalled that the Bush administration made a virtual declaration of war against North Korea when it declared the country to be part an "axis of evil," a hit list of largely defenseless countries to be taken out one by one. Calling Iraq, Iran and North Korea an axis was good rhetoric, but there was no connection among the countries, except that "they resented the power of the West," according to David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter who originally coined the phrase "axis of hatred," later changed to "axis of evil" by Bush's top wordsmith Mike Gerson. Frum said North Korea was added to the list at the last minute because "it needed to feel a firmer hand."

"Resented the power of the West" means the three refused to surrender their sovereignty to the United States. Hence the hit list. Hence the need to feel a firmer hand. If they wouldn't subordinate themselves to Washington peacefully, they'd be forced to violently.

Later, a restive British MP would challenge Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington's faithful servant, about the Anglo-American axis's intentions with regards to North Korea. "Who's next?" (after Iraq), he demanded of Blair. "North Korea?" The Prime Minister allowed as how the "crisis" on the Korean peninsula would have to be dealt with in due time.

Yesterday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was busily at work building the pretext for a future attack on the next hit list country. North Korea, he said "continues to engage in provocative and now reckless actions."

Fleischer was referring to North Korean MIGs challenging a US RC-135 spy plane on patrol off the coast of North Korea. But under the circumstances, it was the US surveillance flight, not the MIGs, that was provocative. In recent weeks, the Pentagon has stationed bombers within striking distance of Pyongyang. That, on top of Washington putting the communist country on notice through its "axis of evil" declaration, thereby fingering North Korea as a potential target under Washington's pre-emptive strike doctrine, amounts to a set of highly provocative actions.

What's more, with North Korea having fired up its nuclear power facilities at Yongbyon, there's a good chance the Bush administration will carry through on what the Clinton administration contemplated doing--razing the facilities to the ground in a missile strike--a plan that it backed away from in favor of an agreement to supply fuel oil and lightwater reactors in exchange for Pyongyang shutting the reactor down.

That agreement collapsed when Washington accused North Korea of secretly flouting the pact by developing nuclear weapons. Washington cut off fuel oil supplies, and Pyongyang put the reactor -- which is capable of producing weapons grade material -- back in to operation, at the same time withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But there is much that is murky about the events surrounding the collapse of the agreement. Gregory Elich ("Targeting North Korea") points out that it was a US official who said Pyongyang admitted to having developed nuclear weapons, not Pyongyang itself. And the US has failed to live up to its side of the agreement. Only the most rudimentary work had begun on the lightwater reactors, which were to be built by 2003. And while the agreement called for a normalization of relations between the two countries, the Bush administration has taken an increasingly aggressive posture toward North Korea. And that growing hostility has continued, with Washington rejecting out of hand North Korea's offer of a nonaggression pact.

It's not clear whether North Korea has nuclear warheads or not, or whether it intends to develop them, but what is clear is that Washington has decided that any country that refuses to knuckle under and is weak enough to be pushed around will not be allowed to develop the capability to defend itself. This doctrine isn't peculiar to the Bush administration; the Clinton administration was willing to breach international law by launching an unprovoked attack on the Yongbyon facilities for the very same reason.

But depriving another country of the means of self-defense so that it can be easily pushed around and forced to surrender its sovereignty would hardly meet with the approval of the American population. Moreover, the hypocrisy of denying other countries weapons while possessing the world's largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is too jarring. Accordingly, Washington remains mum on the true reasons it's targeting North Korea, and transforms the small struggling country into a baleful, reckless and provocative power that threatens the United States and its allies. Iraq has undergone the same transformation, for the same reasons. So too will Iran.

Sadly, this fairly black and white issue will be muddied by those who insist on ritualistic denunciations of North Korea's leader Kim Jong Il, communism and neo-Stalinism, in the same way the issue of Washington's grossly illegal, immoral, and unpopular designs for war on Iraq have been muddied by ritualistic denunciations of Saddam Hussein, Iraqi human rights violations, and old stories (which now seem to be have been distorted, "Reality Checks Needed During War," Toronto Star, March 1, 2003) of Saddam gassing his own people.

The issue isn't Kim Jong Il. The issue is the United States seeking to extend its hegemony, through whatever means necessary. If that isn't learned soon, the hit list will grow longer.

You may re-post this article, providing the text remains unchanged.

... Donna. N. Korea Leader: 'Burn With Hatred' Against US. Nation's Leader Celebrates Birthday. ... OTHER PAGES ON THIS SITE REGARDING KOREA. DREAM OF 33. ... ...
www.greatdreams.com/korean.htm -

... The events, scheduled to take place throughout the United States, the Republic of Korea and the Pacific from 2000 to 2003, are intended "to honor and thank all ...
www.greatdreams.com/coming_war.htm -

The Changing of the Guard: Part V: The Oracle
... North Korea. Iran. India / Pakistan. Turkey. ... North Korea: (March 12) At this point in time, reference to North Korean military threats must be played down entirely ...

Congress Backs Pentagon Budget Heavy on Future Weapons
Buildup Pricier Than That in '80s

By Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 11, 2004; Page A23

As Congress moves ahead with a huge new defense bill, lawmakers are making only modest changes in the Pentagon's plans to spend well over $1 trillion in the next decade on an arsenal of futuristic planes, ships and weapons with little direct connection to the Iraq war or the global war on terrorism.

House and Senate versions of the 2005 defense authorization measure contain a record $68 billion for research and development -- 20 percent above the peak levels of President Ronald Reagan's historic defense buildup. Tens of billions more out of a proposed $76 billion hardware account will go for big-ticket weapons systems to combat some as-yet-unknown adversary comparable to the former Soviet Union.

On the Pentagon's wish list are such revolutionary weapons as a fighter plane that can land on an aircraft carrier or descend vertically to the ground; a radar-evading destroyer that can wallow low in the waves like a submarine while aiming precise rounds at enemy targets 200 miles inland; and a compact "isomer" weapon that could tap the metallic chemical element hafnium to release 10,000 times as much energy per gram as TNT.

So far this year, the debate in Congress over the defense bill has largely skirted the budgetary or strategic implications of this buildup, largely because Republican and Democratic politicians are unwilling to appear weak on defense after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"In the public mind there is clearly a present danger, so we can't trim back the defense budget in any manner even though counterterrorism spending only accounts for a small part of it," said Carl Conetta, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives.

But as Congress comes under new pressures to fund the war in Iraq, provide better physical protection for troops in the field, help financially strapped military families and defend U.S. shores, some lawmakers in both parties say Congress and the Pentagon must begin to choose among competing defense priorities.

"We are in a massive train wreck financially," Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) recently told members of the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces, which he chairs. "The time has come to be tough about the way we are spending money on programs that we cannot see the ability to fund" in later years.

War costs and modernization are expected to drive defense spending to nearly $500 billion in 2005, above the inflation-adjusted Cold War average, and $50 billion above 2004. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the long-term price tag for all the planes, ships and weapons the military services want will be at least $770 billion above what the Bush administration's long-term defense plan calls for.

In a major speech last week, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, called for cutting back funding for a national missile defense system -- a priority of the Bush administration -- to pay for increasing the size of the active-duty Army.

Other lawmakers are concerned that a defense budget that gives the Pentagon the resources to challenge adversaries in the air, sea and on land throughout the world for the next half-century will inevitably further skew the nation's foreign policy toward military intervention.

The current defense budget, said Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), "is consistent with the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz view of the world that we will essentially abandon 'soft' power -- diplomacy and the use of international institutions -- and will concentrate on 'hard' power -- military strength that we exercise alone."

He was characterizing the strategic defense policies of Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz.

The defense budget before Congress looks far different from the one Rumsfeld envisioned when he first came to office. At that time, he was pushing the armed forces toward a "transformation" creating lighter, faster, electronically networked and smaller forces. That approach already has resulted in plans for the Army's Future Combat Systems and the Navy's proposed Littoral Combat Ship.

Rumsfeld canceled the Army's heavy Crusader artillery system and made clear he was skeptical of other costly advanced weapons systems championed by the military chiefs and defense contractors.

But the Sept. 11 attacks and the combat that followed diverted Rumsfeld from his transformation initiatives and also increased the Pentagon's respect for more orthodox existing weapons that they once considered phasing out. These included the Air Force's slow-flying but reliable A-10, which supports ground forces, and the Army's M-1 tank.

"Afghanistan and Iraq have injected a long-overdue sense of realism in the decisions at DOD about how much you can foresee the future," retired Army Col. Richard H. Sinnreich said. "After 9/11, a whole bunch of things changed."

After the terrorist attacks, the Pentagon continued to move ahead with "essentially all of the major acquisitions included in the Clinton administration defense plan," according to a recent report of the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

The view was echoed in a March report drafted by a panel of defense experts and retired military and Pentagon officials at the request of two prominent think tanks, the Center for Defense Information and Foreign Policy in Focus. It concluded that "the Bush military budget is being spent on a force structure that does not match today's security challenges because it is designed for a cold war style large-scale conventional challenge that we no longer face."

Some changes and cutbacks are being made around the edges of the budget.

In February, the Army canceled development of its future helicopter, the Comanche, to free more funds for immediate wartime needs.

Congress last year cut planned purchases of the Navy's new Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines from seven to five through 2008.

This year, the Senate Armed Services Committee, citing production delays, proposed reducing procurement of the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor from 24 to 22 planes. The House-passed defense authorization bill reduces funding for developing the Littoral Combat Ship and the next-generation DD(X) destroyer.

But whether any of those cuts will survive the coming negotiations between the House and Senate, or will pass muster with the appropriations committees that make the final decisions, is highly questionable, if Congress's performance on previous defense bills is any indication.

The cost of the stealthy F-22 air-to-air fighter in the 2005 budget is $5 billion, and that of a second combat aircraft in the development stage, the Joint Strike Fighter, is $4.5 billion. Lockheed Martin Corp. is prime contractor for both planes, as well as for the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS), a satellite network that is supposed to be a key part of a defense against missile attack.

Envisioned in the 1980s as a radar-evading plane that could take on Soviet fighters deep over Russia, the F-22's future role now is more ambiguous because no country is developing an aircraft with anything near its capabilities.

"We haven't faced an enemy with an Air Force to speak of since 1945, except for a few MiGs in North Korea and Vietnam," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate Republican aide who is author of a forthcoming book on Congress and defense.

The combined cost of the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter in 2005 will equal about a fifth of federal aid to education and half of the budget for all foreign aid and military assistance.

But about 1,000 contractors in 43 states work on the F-22, and they are well-connected in Congress.

Six members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have urged reconsideration of the cut even though they acknowledged that producing even 22 planes a year "exceeds the contractor's current capability to produce aircraft."

Senior military officials and defense industry representatives argue that pinching pennies on security is a serious mistake in uncertain times. Advanced weapons such as the F-22, they say, provide such a wide technological "gap" that they deter potential enemies such as China from trying to catch up.

"If we're to maintain our power and leadership in the world, we have to be able to maintain these capabilities. . . . It's an insurance policy for our country," said Tom Jurkowsky, spokesman for Lockheed Martin.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Pentagon Establishes New Force For Future Invasions

Alex Massie 

11/30/03: (The Scotsman)
HAVING discovered in Iraq that it can be harder to win the peace than the war, America is taking steps to ensure future conquests do not turn sour. 

Senior Pentagon officials are currently considering plans to set up two 15,000-strong divisions that would be dedicated to overseeing the reconstruction of countries in the aftermath of future military campaigns. 

And while the units could be used for peace-keeping operations anywhere in the world, it is understood their use has been included in Pentagon wargaming of potential invasions of countries such as Iran, Syria and even North Korea. 

As part of its ongoing "transformation" project, the Pentagon has recently been updating wargame scenarios for these areas and concluded the United States can win battles faster and with fewer troops than previously been thought possible. 

As a result, a thorough overhaul of US troop deployment around the world is under way, with an emphasis on a smarter, leaner army able to deploy anywhere in the world at a moment’s notice. 

The changes underline America’s determination to maintain the capability to overthrow other rogue regimes suspected of harbouring terrorists, but there is also a recognition that military force alone cannot guarantee stability and a successful transition to democratic civilian rule. 

Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, director of the Pentagon’s Office of Force Transformation, a bureau charged with devising ways for the US military to operate more efficiently and effectively, has backed the proposal to set up two peace-keeping divisions of 15,000 troops, which was developed by the National Defence University. "This [post-conflict] mission is too important and too hard to rely on cobbling a force together," he said. 

Cebrowski argues a permanent post-conflict stabilisation force needs to be treated as being of equal importance to combat troops and not as an optional extra. "War is more than combat and combat is more than shooting," he said. 

Although many of the elements - such as engineers and military police - that would make up a post-conflict force are already found within the US military, Cebrowski said: "Their existence does not constitute a capability until you organise for that. The military has to get good at that." 

A second proposal envisages a 5,000-strong peace-keeping brigade specialising in what the Pentagon now calls "stability operations". 

Each scheme is an acknowledgement that the US army does not possess an adequate "post-conflict" capability. 

A senior Pentagon official said it appeared likely this would change. "It’s an idea that has legs. If you have dedicated forces, you can ensure they will be better organised for post-war tasks and know what they are about," the insider said. 

The idea is a significant U-turn by President George Bush’s administration and is seen as an attempt to limit the political damage caused by the continuing casualties being sustained in Iraq. 

As recently as June, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had speculated that while the US might "provide some leadership for training of other countries’ citizens who would like to participate in peace-keeping", it would not be interested in playing a leading role in those operations itself. 

But, according to the Washington Post, he sent a memo in August pondering the possible need to "try to fashion a post-combat capability of some sort". 

According to James Carafano, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the US is currently ill-equipped to mount peace operations. 

"When American forces do undertake peace missions, they try, as much as possible, to make them mirror traditional military activities," he said. 

Carafano said the military had a "tradition of forgetting" the lessons of previous peace-keeping and post-conflict operations, such as the occupation of the Rhineland after the First World War, and military governments in Mexico, California, the Southern States, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, China and the Philippines. 

Thomas Donnelly, a defence analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said it was still "painfully obvious the civilian and uniformed leadership of the US military remains resolutely fixated on battle and, it seems, wilfully ignorant about war: the use of armed force for a political purpose". 

Within the US, there is a significant lobby that believes there are still battles waiting to be fought to achieve victory in the war on terror. 

Michael Ledeen, author of The War Against the Terror Masters who believes the US must put more pressure on Syria and do more to support the reformist opposition in Iran, said: "We are involved in a regional struggle, not just a national conflict. 

"This is not a civil war, it is part of the broad war against the terror masters, and it cannot be won if we limit our vision and our action to Iraq." However, he added: "At the moment, the top policy people do not want to take on another terror master, whether in Damascus, Tehran, Tripoli or Jeddah." 

Any such operation would prove unpopular with senior army officers who are already concerned the US military is dangerously over-stretched. 

And there are other signs of tension between senior army officers and Pentagon defense strategists. 

As part of the wider review process, plans are being considered that would effectively strip away power from the four-star generals who currently run the military’s six command areas and concentrate power within the Pentagon itself. 

"The traditional sensibility about forces being solely dedicated to regional duty is something we want to discuss," said a senior defence official. 

"The process of deploying US troops will be more centrally controlled by the Pentagon who will move US forces around the world as though they were pieces on a chessboard."

Copyright: The Scotsman.


Posted January 31, 2002

A New Pentagon 'Triad'
by Michael T. Klare

The "Nuclear Posture Review" released by the Defense Department on January 9 has been widely described in the media as presaging a diminished US reliance on nuclear weapons in favor of advanced "conventional" munitions. "Pentagon Study Urges Arms Shift, From Nuclear to High-Tech" was the headline in the New York Times. But while the report does advocate increased spending on conventional arms, it foresees no corresponding decline in America's reliance on nuclear arms--rather, it embraces a new grand strategy in which nuclear weapons will be wedded to missile defenses and high-tech conventional arms to perpetuate America's "sole superpower" status.

Many details of the highly classified review have not been made public, but the broad outlines of the plan have been circulated in Washington. Most noteworthy is the Administration's proposal to reduce the number of "operationally deployed" nuclear weapons (that is, weapons actually installed on ballistic missiles or readily available for use by Air Force bombers) from around 6,000 today to 1,700-2,200 in 2012.

When George W. Bush first announced the government's intention to downsize the operational US stockpile, during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in November, he clearly stated that the surplus warheads would be destroyed. "We are talking about reducing and destroying the number of warheads to get down to specific levels," he told a group of high school students in Crawford, Texas, on November 15. Since then, however, Pentagon officials have declared that many of these surplus weapons would be retained in a "responsive capability," where they would be available for redeployment to operational forces in as short a time as several weeks.

When pressed to explain why the Administration has decided to retain rather than to destroy all these weapons, Pentagon officials have indicated that unanticipated future perils--say, a greater-than-expected threat from Russia or China--could produce a requirement for additional warheads. The "responsive capability" is needed, Assistant Secretary of Defense J.D. Crouch told reporters on January 9, because Washington must be able to respond to "changes in the security environment that were more adverse than we thought."

The Administration's backtracking in this manner has led to justifiable complaints from the arms control community that the Administration is being disingenuous in its announcement of nuclear cuts. The retention of all these surplus warheads "makes a mockery of the reductions," Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association told the Washington Post on January 9. But disgust over the Pentagon's apparent duplicity misses the point: The principal aim of the Administration's nuclear policy is not to slow the tempo of nuclear downsizing (although that is a subsidiary purpose) but rather to firmly install nuclear weapons in a new US strategy designed to insure permanent US military supremacy.

The new strategy is constructed around the concept of a "new triad" of military capabilities. To the "old triad" of ICBMs, nuclear-armed bombers and ballistic missile submarines, the "new triad" adds two new capabilities--a national missile defense system and an array of "nonnuclear strike forces" (including ultra-powerful conventional bombs and conventionally armed cruise missiles). This new posture, the Pentagon asserts, "offers a portfolio of capabilities and the flexibility required to address a spectrum of contingencies." To pay for these and other costly new military systems, Bush has requested a whopping $48 billion increase in military spending during the fiscal year beginning October 1.

Although Defense officials are not very forthcoming about US strategic objectives, it is evident from what has been said that the aim of all this is to enable future US Presidents to engage in any overseas military actions or adventures they deem necessary with total assurance of victory and no risk of enemy retaliation. In a rare instance of Pentagon candor, Assistant Secretary Crouch explained that the new policy does not entail a diminished reliance on nuclear weapons but rather their integration into a new strategy of permanent dominance. "It's important to underscore that we continue to need nuclear forces as well as other elements of the new triad, both to assure our friends and allies of US security commitments and to dissuade potential competitors from competing with the United States in ways that are harmful to US security."

This assertion, as well as the whole thrust of the Administration's nuclear plan, raises troubling questions. What future outcomes can we expect from a US posture of permanent nuclear and conventional supremacy? How will other countries react?

Two worrisome scenarios come to mind immediately: the adoption by the United States of a strategy of frequent and wide-ranging military intervention abroad (we already see signs of this in calls for actions against or in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and the Philippines in the name of antiterrorism), and stepped-up efforts by Russia and China to compensate for US missile defenses by improvements in their own offensive nuclear capabilities (here, too, we see signs of such behavior).

How do we respond to these perils? The first step is to join with those in the arms control and disarmament community who are demanding that any weapons made surplus by the Administration's nuclear reductions be fully destroyed, with all associated fissionable materials rendered unusable for military purposes. We must also demand a national debate on nuclear policy that would entail frank discussion of the dangers posed by the pursuit of permanent military dominance. Only in this manner can we hope to reduce the risks of adventurism and miscalculation in a world that retains many thousands of nuclear weapons.

FROM: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020218&s=klare


Published on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 by Democracy for America
Hidden Agenda: A National Draft in the Future?
by Howard Dean

A key issue for young Americans and their families to consider as they prepare to cast their votes in the upcoming presidential election is the real likelihood of a military draft being reinstated if President Bush is re-elected. President Bush should tell us now whether he supports a military draft.

Here is the evidence that makes a draft likely:

  • The U.S. Army has acknowledged that they are stretched thin and that finding new recruits is challenging. They recently placed 300 new recruiters in the field. Bonuses for new recruits to the Army have risen by 67 percent to a maximum of $10,000 and $15,000 for hard-to-fill specialties.
  • The extended tours of duty have made service less attractive for both the regular armed forces, and particularly for the National Guard and Reserves. To meet this year's quota for enlistees, the Army has sped up the induction of "delayed entry" recruits, meaning they are already borrowing from next year's quotas in order to meet this year's numbers.
  • Reservists are now being called away for longer periods. In 2003, President Bush dramatically extended the length of time for the Guard and Reserves deployment in Iraq. Extended tours of up to a year have become common.
  • In a further sign of a lack of adequate staffing, the armed forces are now in the process of calling up members of the Individual Ready Reserves. These are often older reservists usually waiting retirement. They are typically in their mid-to-late forties, and have not been on active duty and have not trained for some time. Traditionally, they are only supposed to be called up during a time of national emergency. In 2001, President Bush authorized their call up but never rescinded this order even after he declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq in May of 2003.
  • The Armed Forces are already chronically understaffed. In 2003, General Eric Shinseki testified before Congress that an additional 50,000 troops would be needed beyond what the Bush administration said would be necessary to stabilize Iraq after the invasion. The President ignored him. We do not have enough troops in Afghanistan to be able to stabilize the country, as shown by the continual putting off of elections well past their announced date. In an effort to free up yet more troops in the coming years, we are moving troops away from the Demilitarized Zone in Korea and reducing the number of troops on the Korean Peninsula at a time when North Korea poses more of a danger to the U.S. - not less. Because of the President's military adventurism, our Armed Forces are under enormous pressure. The only place to go for more troops is a draft.
  • Selective service boards have already been notified that 20-year-olds and medical personnel will be called up first.

President Bush will be forced to decide whether we can continue the current course in Iraq, which will clearly require the reinstatement of the draft. The Pentagon has objected to a draft but, the President has ignored other Pentagon recommendations in the past.

American families and young people are owed an explanation about the President's plans. Will the President withdraw from some of our military commitments or will he reinstate the draft? We need to know that before we vote, not afterwards.




THE CHANGING OF THE GUARD - Part Two: Illuminati Revealed
... Part Two: Illuminati Revealed. ... One of our trusted associates has said that if you
really get the Illuminati on your back, "Never order room service!". ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/media02.html - 57k - Cached - Similar pages

... ILLUMINATI. ... http://www.angelfire.com/wv/ILLUMINATI1/index.html WARNING THE ILLUMINATI
www.greatdreams.com/mind.htm - 73k - Cached - Similar pages

The Changing of the Guard: Part III: Illuminati Life and ...
Corporate Media Whistleblower Speaks. Part Three: Illuminati Life and Propaganda. ...
The End of the Illuminati. Author: Svali Published on: November 15, 2001. ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/media03.html - 73k - Cached - Similar pages

www.greatdreams.com/consp.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

... According to his website, Bush and the British royal family are key members of the
world "Illuminati elite" of human-reptile hybrids whose rituals are designed ...
www.greatdreams.com/plans.htm - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

... Indeed, if I were so far from the mark, as these critics like Nexus Magazine, Sir
Laurence Gardner, and others claim, surely the Illuminati would WANT me to ...
www.greatdreams.com/icke.htm - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

... Baphomet kabalistically sets forth the aims of the Illuminati. ... The Federal
Reserve - not federal, with no reserves, The Illuminati. ...
www.greatdreams.com/nwo.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

... human race, led to the concept of "lllumiNation: View World Order": the logical
progression of T3 and its inherent expose of the Illuminati / Secret Government ...
www.greatdreams.com/cnsprcy.htm - 64k - Cached - Similar pages

Alien Abduction Classifications
... abductees who do not experience the alien element, but claim to be under mind control
conducted by secret human agencies such as the CIA, NSA and Illuminati. ...
www.greatdreams.com/ufos/alien-abduction-technology.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

... Those of the Illuminati who are not at the Great Pyramid will be positioned at precise
longitudes and latitudes along the ley lines to perform rituals of the ...

... Confirmed Mason and Illuminati. Vice President, Elbridge Gerry 1813-1814. Unknown
Mason Status. ... President of the United States (DR) Confirmed Illuminati. ...
www.greatdreams.com/amndmnts.htm - 59k - Cached - Similar pages

The Changing of the Guard - Part One: Corporate Media ...
... The remainder of this Part One focuses on information related to a hidden worldwide
power group known variously as the Illuminati, the Craft, the Family, the ...

... THE ILLUMINATI FAMILY BLOODLINES OF THE PUPPETMASTERS. ... The Illuminati controls the world through their secret and semi-secret organizations. ...
... When the Illuminati was formed on Walpurgisnacht (eve of May 1st), 1776, five men gathered in a cavern deep beneath Ingolstadt in Bavaria and made contact with ...
... Like blind men examining an elephant, we attribute this conspiracy to Jews, Illuminati, Vatican, Jesuits, Freemasons, Black Nobility, and Bildersbergs etc. ...

... Tummuz, Whicka,etc.) still follows the ancient manor of teaching." [ Albert Pike "Morals and Dogma Fellowcraft Degree p.22 ] Illuminati Conspiracy, Order of ...
www.greatdreams.com/cfr.htm - 73k - Cached - Similar pages

The Changing of the Guard: Part V: The Oracle
... Most of all, if you are in any position to affect these outcomes so as to defeat the Illuminati, now is the time to step forth. ...

Carter to Clinton - The Becoming
... Formed over a century and a half ago, its origin dates back to the German Illuminati -
a secret occult society whose agenda has always been global dominance. ...
www.greatdreams.com/carter-clinton.htm - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

... So be warned.If you're expecting stories about "illuminati", leylines, magic symbols
and cosmic rays, then kindly stop reading now.But if you're curious to ...
www.greatdreams.com/bilderbergs.htm - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

... could use the differences in those two so-called ideologies [marxism/fascism/socialism
v. democracy/capitalism] to enable them [the Illuminati] to divide ...
www.greatdreams.com/trade_blew_up.htm - 84k - Cached - Similar pages

... BLOODLINES OF THE ILLUMINATI Who really controls world events from behind-the-scene? ...
THE CHANGING OF THE GUARD - Part Two: Illuminati Revealed ... ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/cabal.htm - 87k - Cached - Similar pages

... In the late 1800’s, early 1900’s, there were a variety of secret /occult societies
in Germany, the main ones being, The Bavarian Illuminati, The Freemasons ...

... Great Dreams Earthchanges' Illuminati www.greatdreams.com/consp.htm#ILLUMINATI. Project X Newsletter, 16th issue - June the 5th, 1999. ... ...

YOU GOTTA BE JOKING!!! The Beast of Revelation
... The largest candidate for the Beast is the conspiratorial elitists of the Illuminati which are actively organizing a combined United States, NATO, and United ...
www.greatdreams.com/joking-beast.htm - 95k - Cached - Similar pages


... are made to the ancient demonic deity "Baal"; in contrived, staged, scripted "events--like Columbine--set in motion by "Illuminati" elements embedded in (covert ...
www.greatdreams.com/death/deathstr.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

FREQUENCY SICKNESS. WHAT ARE THE CAUSES AND THE SYMPTOMS? by Dee Finney, Michelle Lavigne-Wedel and Alex. and others as named. Where ...

... According to Robertson, a secret cabal of "international (read: "Jewish") bankers
and financiers", along with the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission and ...

... Who are the Illuminati? The Illuminati Bloodlines. ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON FREEMASONRY IN ITALY calls the Masons - 'Satanic'. ... ...


Anti-War Global rallies protest possible US war on Iraq - Oct. 26 ...
Demonstrators gathered in Washington on Saturday to protest a possible US-led war on Iraq with anti-war chants, placards and speakers chastising politicians. ...
www.greatdreams.com/war/anti-war.htm - 


www.greatdreams.com/wariraq.htm - 

Revelation 19 - War of Armegeddon
Revelation 19 - WAR OF ARMAGEDDON. Will the Third Temple be Built in Jerusalem? updated 7-26-04. ... The Third Temple: Blueprint for War? "Simulation" Altar. ...
www.greatdreams.com/sacred/rev-19.htm -

. . . THE FEDERALIST PAPERS THE WAR OF 1812 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 2 and 13 THE MASONIC CONNECTION. ... 1777-1815: The Revolutionary War to the War of 1812. ...
www.greatdreams.com/amndmnts.htm - 

HORRORS OF WAR. PEACE AT ANY PRICE? ... A Spanish artist especially well suited by mood and by circumstance to portray the horrors of war was Francisco de Goya. ...
www.greatdreams.com/war_peace.htm -

THE COMING WAR(S). vs the PAST WARS. JAMES GARNER. compiled by Dee Finney. 1 ... Commemorating the Korean War. Story by Heike Hasenauer. GAYDEN ...

"THE DOGS OF WAR". BLOWBACK THE MARBLE GAME. THE DREAM AND THE REALITY. compiled by Dee Finney. ... "War is at best barbarism.... Its glory is all moonshine. ...
www.greatdreams.com/blowback.html - 

... 6 pm the same day. (The visit was taking place about 8 am) He was going as part of a war prevention group. Ken came and stood in ...

updated 4-25-02. DREAMS AND VISIONS OF WAR. 5-10-95 - DREAM - I was upstairs in my 16th St. ... It said, "World War III.". ~~~. 10-29-97. ...
www.greatdreams.com/war.htm - 

. . . THE BLOODY WAR OF JOEL FOR WARREN. A PROPHETIC VISION. by Dee Finney. ... The map had a black title at the top: 'THE BLOODY WAR OF JOEL FOR WARREN'. Joel 1 ...
www.greatdreams.com/joel.htm - 

... As I was talking to her, the radio was on with the news and the announcer began talking about the Tulghur area and some war operation that happened 25 years ...
www.greatdreams.com/war/tulghur-iran.htm -

updated 10-8-99. RUSSIA/CHECHNYA. TERRORISM LEADS TO WAR. ... The end of the war in 1996 left Chechnya technically still part of Russia, but effectively independent. ...
www.greatdreams.com/terrruss.htm - 

SPIRIT MESSAGE - 17 - Pakistan and India - Nuclear War - The Mars ...
SPIRIT MESSAGE. Pakistan and India - Nuclear War - The Mars/Earth Connection. 17. ... There is too much at stake. You wonder why Mars is known as the 'war planet'? ...
www.greatdreams.com/spirit_message17.htm -

NOBODY WANTS ANY. WHO CAN DECLARE WAR? ... Looming World War III to coincide with Biblically prophesied War of Gog and Magog (Armageddon)? BATTLE FOR JERUSALEM. ...
www.greatdreams.com/nobody_wants_peace.htm -

SPIRIT MESSAGE - WAR, THE PROMISED LAND, PEACE. 12. by Dee Finney. 4-4-2002 - Thank you for coming. Today, we want to talk about war. ...
www.greatdreams.com/spirit_message12.htm - 

SPIRIT MESSAGE. WAR - MANKIND - CHANGE NEEDED. 9. by Dee Finney. 3-28-2002. Thank you for coming. Let us have a word about the war. ...
www.greatdreams.com/spirit_message9.htm - 

India - A Quilted Nation
... On Thursday, the two groups dismissed their inclusion on the list and said they will continue their jihad, or holy war, in Kashmir. ...

... by Dee Finney. There is no cure for nuclear war - ONLY PREVENTION! ... Perhaps its greatest triumph is that, in the midst of the Cold War, it was made at all. ...
www.greatdreams.com/atomic.htm - 

... NOTE: Some of these visions don't seem to fit, but when analyzed metaphorically with mythology, they seem to fit a war scenario. ...

... 7 - I heard a voice say: "Rumours of war!". ... 1-22-00 - MEDITATION - I asked about the 90,000 hours in the previous meditation regarding the nuclear war. ...
www.greatdreams.com/nuclear.htm -


... The catastrophes happening in your world today are the results of a devastating war between My Holy Spirit and the very evil spirit. ...

SPIRIT MESSAGE. WAR IN ISRAEL AND PALESTINE. 10. 3-29-02 - Thank you for coming. We are at war! Yes! War! What else can you call it ...
www.greatdreams.com/spirit_message10.htm -

Kerry: Political Commentary - 2004 Presidential Election
... Kerry called for an end to the US occupation of Iraq and criticized the administration's use of now discredited intelligence as a basis for launching the war. ...
www.greatdreams.com/political/kerry.htm - 

... in a worldly confrontation. (two were dropped in Japan during the second world war.) So, another 3 is expected!!!! That a heavily ...
www.greatdreams.com/juan.htm - 

... There are many, many Navy ships out on the water, and he thinks a nuclear war is about to happen. ... The Masters of War gain wealth, status and power from this. ...

Native vs US Government Chronology 1830-1890
... 1832. Black Hawk War in Illinois and Wisconsin between combined Sauk and Fox tribes and the United States. 1833-34. ... 1835-42. Second Seminole War. ...
www.greatdreams.com/apache/Chronology-1830-1890.htm - 

... and its colors are being used in an attempt to whip up patriotism and convince people that there is a "ground swell" of support for the US's "War on terrorism ...
www.greatdreams.com/green_black.htm - 

... I went back to the wharf, the ships were fully loaded, each one with its own spoked wheel full of weapons, then they all sailed back out to sea to go to war. ...
www.greatdreams.com/war/weapons-sea.htm -

... It is too late. Make LOVE - NOT WAR was a great way to go, but it is too late for that. Too many men have already taught each other that WAR beats out LOVE. ...
www.greatdreams.com/spirit_message15.htm - 

SPIRIT MESSAGE - Number 21 - Be Prepared!!!
... Spirit Message 8 - Tiger Moon, good things to celebrate, more war, ETs coming down to visit the people of earth. ... Spirit Message 10 - War in Israel. ...
www.greatdreams.com/spirit_message21.htm - 

Prophecies on the end of the millennium - on 1999-2000

... several prophecies correctly, helping the police to discover criminals, telling if the soldiers would return alive or not from the Second World War, helping in ...
www.greatdreams.com/prophen2.htm - 

... WASHINGTON (AP) - (October 19, 1999) The Pentagon for the first time is acknowledging Cold War locations of nuclear weapons outside the United States ...
... Last night I realized that the war in Afghanistan is cooling down. ... You can read his original letter in the following article, Saturation Means War! ...
... 7 - "Rumours of war!". #8 - "The legal system is messy!". ... VIETNAM WAR - 1964 to 1975 -Participants 9,200,000 - Deaths in Service - 109,000 ...


... An armada of 3,000 landing craft, 2,500 other ships, and 500 naval vessels -- escorts and bombardment ships--began to leave English ports. ...

... The radioactive material — enough, critics say, for 50 or more nuclear weapons — will be carried by ships owned by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and be ...
... ``Prior to these actions, two to three ships per day left to Bar harbor. Now we're seeing 10 ships a day in port, almost exclusively ...
... Ten ships and two helicopters were searching for survivors, but there was little chance anyone could have survived the icy conditions, Xinhua quoted Shao ...

... globe. They have their investments, lawyers, ships, armies and missiles. ... Tigers. "The ships are just one of the LTTE' s commercial ventures.". ...
... 9 and the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. ...
... fuel missile instead. The Polaris A-1 was developed and declared suitable for launching from ships as well as submarines. The USS ...
... (9) And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. ...
... Great Britain lost 10,000 men to death and 6,000 wounded and lost 2,479 ships. The Continental Army lost 25,435 men and 6,188 wounded and lost 1,323 ships. ...
Should we Know More About Project Megiddo?
... [I]f someone from an ecological action group has decided to destroy bulldozers, or sink whaling ships or dump bags of red paint on members of a government ...
... come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,. Rev 18 ...
... uncovered and stopped terrorist conspiracies targeting the American embassy in Yemen, the American embassy in Singapore, a Saudi military base, ships in the ...
Cinnamon Buns and the BeaST
... And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, 18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her ...
... viewing of the war game operations, and the week will end with a public exposition that will include flight demonstrations, tours of Navy ships and displays of ...
YOU GOTTA BE JOKING!!! The Beast of Revelation
... in ... bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it ... DREAMS OF BOATS AND SHIPS. ... This ...

... "That would be similar to those who were at Pearl and were trapped in the ships for days.". Fellow Pearl Harbor survivor Guy Squeo ...

... WASHINGTON (AP) - Whether it would begin with cruise missiles from Navy ships, bombs from Air Force jets or quick strikes by Army special forces, an American ...
... I was at a wharf where the Navy is berthed and ships are being resupplied The ships came in to be re-supplied with "Tuuy" and "Uum" weapons. ...




credit for beast image to: http://www.xlnt-arts.com/maria/assets/duplicate1.1/