The Politically Correct vs. the Politically Ridiculous

The Politically Correct vs. the Politically Ridiculous
National Review Online, NY - 8 minutes ago
... trading to Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, Cuba ... anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles, other advanced ... in the company of high UAE officials, including ...
MORE:>>

GOOGLE NEWS: NORTH KOREA * UAE

GOOGLE: NORTH KOREA + UAE
SEE UAE MAP:

A Brief Description

Formerly known as the Trucial States, the United Arab Emirates are a federation of seven individual states, all ruled by emirs.

Founded between the 7th and 8th centuries, the Trucial States granted the United Kingdom control of their defense and foreign affairs in treaties signed in the 19th.

In 1971, six of these states - Abu Zaby, 'Ajman, Al Fujayrah, Ash Shariqah, Dubayy, and Umm al Qaywayn - merged to form the United Arab Emirates (UAE). They were then joined in 1972 by Ra's al Khaymah.

With a significant GDP, based primarily on oil, the U.A.E. plays an important role in the affairs of the Middle East.

Abu Dhabi, the country's capital, as well as Dubai, are modern cities famed for their high-rise buildings and stylish hotels.

For additional info on the United Arab Emirates, click here
http://www.uae.org.ae/

Facts and Figures

Official Name United Arab Emirates

Population 2,600,000

Capital City Abu Dhabi (528,000)

Currency Emirati Dirham (AED)

Currency Converter here

Languages Arabic (official), English, others

Flag here

National Day December 2

Religions Muslim (96%), others

Geographic Coordinates

Latitude/Longitude (Capital City)
24� 27' N, 54� 23' E

Relative Location The United Arab Emirates is in both the northern and eastern hemispheres. It's positioned in the Middle East, a recognized geographical region of southwestern Asia. It's bordered by the Persian Gulf, and the countries of Oman and Saudi Arabia.

Land Statistics

Coastline 819 miles (1,318 km)

Land Area 83,600 sq km (32,278 sq miles)

Landforms Most of the United Arab Emirates is a desert wasteland, with large, rolling sand dunes, as the outer reaches of the Rub' Al Khali Desert stretch into the country.

The coastal areas fronting the Persian Gulf are flat. The Hajar Mountains dominate the landscape in the northeast, and the country's highest point is located there, and there are no significant rivers or lakes of note.

Numerous small island and inlets are situated offshore in the Persian Gulf.

Highest Point Jabal Yibir - 5,666 ft. (1,727 m)

Lowest Point Persian Gulf - 0 ft. (0 m)

Land Divisions 7 emirates, including: Abu Zaby (Abu Dhabi), 'Ajman, Al Fujayrah, Ash Shariqah (Sharjah), Dubayy (Dubai), Ra's al Khaymah and Umm al Qaywayn.
http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/ae.htm

We make no copyright claim on any statistical data on this page, nor on any non-original graphics, and/or pictures not produced by us. Certain statistical data is gathered from the CIA World Factbook, as well as numerous public domain reference materials.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

-----------------------------

Petrodollars and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
Scoop.co.nz (press release), New Zealand - Feb 14, 2006
... Asian country that was transparently meant for North Korea. ... compact enough to fit onto its Shahab missiles. ... WTI], and United Arab Emirates [UAE] Dubai crude ...
MORE:>>

=====================================
Thursday, February 23, 2006

Charles on the news of the day.

Guest: Charles Goyette

Subject: Dubai Port Deal, Dick Cheney Shooting, Iran, Straits Of Hormuz

* Listen to the MP3 Audio - Segment 1 (8.83 MB)
* Listen to the MP3 Audio - Segment 2 (9.32 MB)
* Listen to the MP3 Audio - Segment 3 (9.11 MB)
====================================================

Let us review these issues in sequence.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0602/S00157.htm
[SNIP]
Plans for a conventional and "tactical" nuclear attack on Iran

On August 1, 2005 Philip Giraldi, an ex-CIA agent and associate of Vincent Cannistraro (the former head of the CIA�s counter-intelligence operations and former intelligence director at the National Security Council), published an article entitled �Deep Background� in The American Conservative. The first section of this article carried the following headline: �In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran.� I quote the first section of Giraldi�s article in its entirety:

�The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney�s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing�that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack�but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.�

The implications of this report are breathtaking. First, it indicates on the part of the ruling Cheney faction within the American state a frank in-house acknowledgment that their often-repeated public claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein�s regime and the 9/11 attacks are the rubbish that informed people have long known them to be.

At a deeper level, it implies that �9/11-type terrorist attacks� are recognized in Cheney�s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system. (Though the implicit acknowledgment is shocking, the fact itself should come as no surprise, since recent research has shown that the Bush administration was deeply implicated not merely in permitting the attacks of September 11, 2001 to happen, but in actually organizing them: see Chossudovsky 2002: 51-63, 144-56; Chossudovsky 2005: 51-62, 135-46, 237-61; Griffin 2004: 127-46, 169-201; Griffin 2005: 115-35, 277-91; Marrs 134-37; and Ruppert 309-436.)

And finally, Giraldi�s report suggests that the recent U.S. development of comparatively low-yield nuclear weapons specifically designed to destroy hardened underground facilities, and the recent re-orientation of U.S. nuclear policy to include first-strike or pre-emptive nuclear attacks on non-nuclear powers, were both part of long-range planning for a war on Iran.

Articles published by William Arkin in the Washington Post in May and October 2005 reported on what the U.S. military�s STRATCOM calls CONPLAN 8022, a global plan for bombing and missile attacks involving �a nuclear option� anywhere in the world that was tested in an exercise that began on November 1, 2005; the scenario for this exercise scripted a dirty-bomb attack on Mobile, Alabama to which STRATCOM responded with nuclear and conventional strikes on an unnamed east-Asian country that was transparently meant for North Korea.

Jorge Hirsch has outlined the deployment of key administrative personnel and of ideological legitimations in preparation for a nuclear attack on Iran (Hirsch, 16 Dec. 2005). And Michel Chossudovsky has described the command structure that has been set up to implement STRATCOM�s current plans for preemptive �theatre� nuclear warfare (see Chossudovsky 2006). But it must be emphasized that these plans, as tested in November 2005 in the exercise referred to by Arkin, involve the creation of an impression of what theorists of nuclear war call �proportionality.� An attack on Iran, which would presumably involve the use of significant numbers of extremely �dirty� earth-penetrating nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by Iranian agents.

Yet as Giraldi indicates, although the bombing of Iran would follow and be represented as a response to �another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States,"the planned pattern involves a cynical separation of appearance from reality: �the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in [this] act of terrorism".
CLICK FULL REPORT:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0602/S00157.htm