Save The Oil And The Wine (Revelation 6)

In this photograph taken on August 29, 2016, Afghan workers fill fuel containers from fuel tankers at a oil depot on the outskirts of Kabul.
Tax-exempt military fuel imported into Afghanistan is being sold on the open market, industry officials and a new anti-corruption report reveal, causing the government huge revenue losses as Kabul struggles to wean itself off foreign aid. PHOTO: WAKIL KOHSAR / AFP
President Dwight Eisenhower called the Middle East “the most strategically important area in the world” “a stupendous source of strategic power and probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment.” State Department declared the Middle East “a prize that U.S. intended to keep for itself and its allies in the unfolding new world order of the day.” Delano Roosevelt’s adviser, Adolf Berle, said control of the incomparable energy reserves of the Middle East would yield substantial control of the world. Loss of control would threaten America and world domination” – a policy that has not changed since 1945.
Oil changed the whole dynamic of power in the world: the Middle East had the oil; the world needed the oil and was willing to do anything to get the oil. USSR, also for strategic reasons would not leave the West alone in the Middle East. As the western economy tottered because of the increase in oil prices, they needed to check the influence of USSR, while rebuilding its economy. For this, both blocks, the West and the USSR, did all in their power in the Middle East to keep their respective influence, while check-mating each other.
Any arms wanted by countries in the Middle East, they got. From Atoll and Styx missiles, MIGs, 17, 19, 21, and 29 planes were sold to them. Three quarters of military material of India were supplied by USSR; India was licensed to produce military Soviet MIG fighter aircraft while the USSR had denied China from production of this plane.
The USSR signed a 25-year treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation with India and agreed to provide economic, technical and military support. If India went one way, Pakistan would go the other way; hence Pakistan went to the United States.
Saddam Hussein emphasizing the importance of oil said “the real moment when Iraq became independent was when it nationalised its oil industries and oil companies began to pay a fair price for the oil.” The Middle East was, at that time, characterised by what was described as an unimpeded unprecedented inflow of cash.
1970s – 1972 – 73, Iran’s oil revenue rose eight-fold; Iraq revenue rose 50-fold from 26 billion USD to 575 billion USD. The more money that flowed into the Middle East the more Islamic it became. In 1973, Syria and Egypt became one country and attacked Israel in Operation Badr. Not only did they become more Islamic they also became dynastic.
1973 was in some ways a seminal year for the United States; that year saw the Yom Kippur war and this fundamentally changed U.S. attitude to the whole of the Middle East because of the Middle East use of oil supplies as a weapon of war. By restricting output it pushed the price of oil up by at least 400 per cent. But more fundamentally it showed a major weak point in Europe and America.
In November 1973, Richard Nixon spoke to Americans on television telling them that the United State was consuming too much oil and had to cut back. He cut the speed limit to 55mph: heating of home and offices was pegged at the maximum 68°F, air conditioners were to be turned off or down, power plants were to be reconverted back to coal from oil, aviation fuel to be restricted; and all Americans were to lower their thermostat by at least 6°.
The United States, President Nixon insisted, must meet its energy needs. These measures saved 150,000 barrels per day; road accidents were reduced by over 15 per cent – partly as a result lowering speed limits.
The new political issue was energy, forcing President Nixon to produce a new energy policy which included solar power, nuclear power and many other theories blossomed.
The rising prices of oil justified prospect for oil in difficult places for example in the Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, Alaska and so on in an effort to reduce dependency on oil from the Middle East. As usual the West saw a problem and found ways to deal with it. The Middle East on the other hand, saw an opportunity and failed to exploit it to the maximum. Instead they spent money foolishly, lavishly and saved money in western banks which used their money to dig the West out of a hole. The West did what it always did best: promoted discords and instability in the region to their own advantage.
In six months, oil prices had risen from US$ 3 to US$ 12. The West suffered the effects of rising oil prices. But in the Middle East there was a construction boom. The ruling classes were subject to increasing demographic selfishness. The result was a slowdown towards pluralistic democracy. The rise of liberal democracy was stunted giving way in the Middle East to increasing dynastic rule. Liberal democracy virtually, disappeared everywhere in the Middle East. In fact, some intellectual experts have argued that the U.S. actually preferred autocratic dictators and did not want liberal democracy in the Middle East. Each time a nation moved towards democracy the U.S. scuttled that government in favour of a dictatorship.
The 1970s saw decades of opulence in the Middle East: Iran Air ordered Concorde, but could not fly it because countries in Europe would not allow it to fly over them claiming noise pollution. Lavish spending knew no limits. The Arms Race began in earnest. Spending was massive, lavish and even reckless.
The Western nations lobbied aggressively to sell arms to Middle East. In Iran the defence expenditure rose 100 per cent in six years, orders to U.S. companies for military materiel was US$ 20 billion. Which surface to air missile will they buy? The U.S. or the French or the British or that of USSR? Between 1975-1978, Iran spent 40 per cent of its budget on arms.
Iran ordered hundreds of chieftain tanks; the Israelis ordered large number Mirage fighter jets. MIGs – 21, 23, 25 and 29 were ordered by Syria, Soviet 772 tanks and U.S. 5 jets were ordered by Iraq. U.S. sold F5 and F16s to Saudi Arabia. The Middle East arms race was truly on, to the benefit of the economies of Britain, France, the USSR and USA. The up shoot of all these war materiel, the pampering of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait by the U.S. started in the 1970s and still continues today, resulting in the endemic instability of the area which continues today.
A few years ago, Iran wanted to become a nuclear power. Today this is a big issue. It may be said that the handling of the Iranian pursuit of nuclear power defined President Obama’s administration. But it was not so earlier. Western countries were falling over themselves to provide nuclear technology and knowhow to the Middle East.
Iraq’s nuclear potential and the inability of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to locate them led to war and were used by President Bush as a deliberate policy to hoodwink the United Nations (UN). In 2003 the U.S. declared war against Iraq: citing the laboratories for weapons of Mass Destruction, and the facilities, the centrifuges for nuclear weapons. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair gave these facts as a justification for war. Hans Blix, the UN inspector’s team leader could not find any.
Iran’s desire to have nuclear power has provoked similar questions. If Iraq or Israel were to have nuclear weapons, the Iranians did not understand why they should be denied. Moreover, some have argued that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was essentially defensive and as a deterrent.

Iran Horn Plans For Israeli Attack (Daniel 8:4)

5 Mar 2017
Lebanese Hezbollah fighters march near portraits of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (L), founder of Iran’s Islamic Republic, late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, during a parade on February 14, 2015 in the southern Lebanese town of Jibsheet. The Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah is marking today the death of three of its commanders, Abbas al-Mussawi, Ragheb Harb and Imad Mughnieh. Mussawi was killed on February 16, 1992 in an Israeli air raid on Nabatiyeh, Harb was assassinated in south Lebanon during Israel’s occupation in February 1984 and Mughnieh was killed in a car bombing in the Syrian capital Damascus on February 12, 2008. AFP PHOTO / MAHMOUD ZAYYAT (Photo credit should read MAHMOUD ZAYYAT/AFP/Getty Images)
TEL AVIV – Hezbollah will strike nine sensitive chemical and nuclear sites in Israel, according to a new propaganda video released by a news website affiliated with the Lebanon-based terror group.
The clip, published by the al-Ahed news website, comes after Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah made numerous threats saying the Shiite group is targeting Israel’s nuclear reactor in the southern city of Dimona and an ammonia plant in the northern city of Haifa.
In the opening sequence, the video shows what appear to be Russian S-300 missiles being fired and striking the Dimona nuclear reactor to the sound of alarms, the Times of Israel reported.
The video goes on to list eight other sites around Israel, including the Nahal Sorek desalination plant, the Kishon chemical plant, nuclear weapons research sites, and sites allegedly belonging to the IDF as storage facilities for ballistic weapons.
The clip also includes other sensitive information such as satellite images of the locations, amount of employees, the number of buildings per site and a description of toxic materials on each site.
Israel’s military has said that the terror group has between 100,000 and 120,000 short- and medium-range missiles and rockets, as well as several hundred long-range missiles, with the medium-range missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv.
However, there has been no evidence to suggest that Hezbollah has S-300 missiles as shown in the video.
In February, Minister of Intelligence Yisrael Katz warned that “all of Lebanon will be struck” if Nasrallah goes through with his threat to strike Israel’s vital infrastructure sites.
Also last month, Israel reportedly targeted Hezbollah-bound weapons in a series of airstrikes in Syria.
Earlier this week, a Haifa court ruled that an ammonia plant in Haifa must be emptied out within ten days, partially in response to an Israeli officials’ warning that a missile strike on the site could cause tens of thousands of fatalities.

Korean Nuclear Horn Fires Four Missiles

Tue Mar 7, 2017 | 3:26 AM IST
By Ju-min Park and Kaori Kaneko | SEOUL/TOKYO
North Korea fired four ballistic missiles into the sea off Japan’s northwest coast on Monday, angering South Korea and Japan, days after it promised retaliation over U.S.-South Korea military drills it sees as preparation for war.
South Korea’s military said the missiles were unlikely to have been intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), which can reach the United States. They flew on average 1,000 km (620 miles) and reached an altitude of 260 km (160 miles).
Some landed as close as 300 km (190 miles) from Japan’s northwest coast, Japan’s Defence Minister Tomomi Inada said in Tokyo.
The United States and Japan have requested a United Nations Security Council meeting on the launches, which will likely be scheduled for Wednesday, diplomats said.
The U.S. military on Monday left open the possibility of additional launch attempts.
“There were four that landed. There may be a higher number of launches that we’re not commenting on. But four landed and splashed in the Sea of Japan,” Navy Captain Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, told a news briefing.
Condemning the launches as further “provocative behaviour,” White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters the United States was taking steps to enhance defence against ballistic missiles, including deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery in South Korea.
South Korea’s acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn said Seoul would swiftly deploy the anti-missile system despite angry objections from China. A U.S. official said the system could be installed far earlier than an original fall target date.
Japan also plans to reinforce its missile defences and is considering buying either THAAD or building a ground-based version of the Aegis system deployed on warships.
Beefed-up missile defence is among economic and military options being weighed in a White House review of policy toward nuclear-armed North Korea expected to be completed in coming weeks, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said “strong protests” had been lodged with North Korea, which has carried out a series of nuclear and missile tests in defiance of U.N. resolutions..
“It is an extremely dangerous action,” Abe told parliament.
The missiles were launched from the Tongchang-ri region near North Korea’s border with China, South Korean military spokesman Roh Jae-cheon told a briefing, but said it was too early to say what their relatively low altitude indicated.
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, also told Reuters there were no indications so far that North Korea had tested an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the U.S. mainland.
Shortly before taking office, President Donald Trump tweeted “It won’t happen!” in January after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said the North was close to testing an ICBM.
“We deplore the continued violation of Security Council resolutions by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including the most recent launches of ballistic missiles. The DPRK leadership should refrain from further provocations and return to full compliance with its international obligations,” U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said on Monday.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a daily news briefing that China, which is holding its annual meeting of the National People’s Congress, had noted North Korea’s action.
“All sides should exercise restraint and not do anything to irritate each other to worsen regional tensions,” Geng said, referring to both the missile launches and U.S.-South Korean military exercises.
North Korea had threatened to take “strong retaliatory measures” after South Korea and the United States began annual joint military drills on Wednesday that test their defensive readiness against possible aggression from the North.
North Korea criticises the drills and has previously conducted missile launches to coincide with them.
In a letter to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, North Korea’s U.N. Ambassador Ja Song Nam warned that “the situation on the Korean Peninsula is again inching to the brink of a nuclear war” due to the military drills.
Ja again requested that the Security Council meet to discuss the drills. Previous such requests have gone unanswered by the Security Council. The letter did not mention North Korea’s missile launches on Monday.
Last year, North Korea fired a long-range rocket from Tongchang-ri that put an object into orbit. The United Nations condemned that launch for violating resolutions banning the use of ballistic missile technology.
North Korea test-fired a new type of missile into the sea last month and has said it would continue to launch new strategic weapons.
Trump’s national security team is reviewing a wide range of options to counter the missile threat. But an administration official played down the prospects for any direct military action, such as pre-emptive missile strikes on North Korean launch sites or reintroducing nuclear weapons to South Korea, as highlighted in recent news reports.
Instead, the focus is expected to be on imposing new sanctions on North Korea and pressing China to do more to rein in Pyongyang, the official said. Previous administrations have made similar efforts but have failed to curb North Korea’s nuclear and missile advances.
The United States withdrew nuclear weapons from South Korea in 1991 before the rival Koreas signed a declaration on denuclearisation of the peninsula. North Korea walked away from the agreement, citing the threat of invasion by the United States.
North Korea conducted its fifth and most powerful nuclear test last September. State media said after that test Pyongyang had used a nuclear warhead small enough to mount on a ballistic missile.
(Additional reporting by Christine Kim and James Pearson in Seoul, Tim Kelly in Tokyo, Ben Blanchard in Beijing, Phil Stewart, David Brunnstrom and Matt Spetalnick in Washington and Michelle Nichols at the United Nations; Writing by Jack Kim; Editing by James Dalgleish)

Creating The South Korean Nuclear Horn

Yo gap News Agency 
SEOUL, March 5 (Yonhap) — The possibility of the United States redeploying tactical nuclear weapons on South Korean soil to counter North Korea’s evolving military threat is expected to fuel a fresh debate on national defense, sources said Sunday.
The debate comes as the weekend issue of the New York Times reported that in the most recent meeting of U.S. President Donald Trump’s national security deputies, discussion took place on the option of basing tactical nukes on the Korean Peninsula.
The news outlet said the exchange of views occurred last week at the Situation Room, with aides pointing out such a act will send a “dramatic warning” to the North.
This marks the first time that the tactical nuke issue has been brought up by policymakers in the new administration and is drawing considerable attention, local observers said.
Washington had removed all tactical weapons from the Northeast Asian country in September 1991 after the U.S. called for a reduction in its nuclear arsenal.
More recently, with the escalation of North Korea’s nuclear threat, there have been calls by some in the country to bring back U.S. nukes or for South Korea to acquire its own nuclear weapons technology.
Since 2006, the North has conducted five underground nuclear test and fired off large number of ballistic missiles that has caused considerable jitters in South Korea as well as in the United States.
“With Washington seemingly raising the matter for review, it may be inevitable that some sort of discussion will take place going forward,” an official source, who declined to be identified, said.
Unlike strategic nuclear weapons, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and those fired off from submarines and dropped by bombers, tactical nukes usually have a small yield warhead of under 20 kilotons that only affects certain battlefields.
These nuclear weapons can be delivered by field artillery and even small bombs and missiles, with the military saying that the United States has forward deployed 180 such weapons in some North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries like Germany and Turkey as of 2015.
Related to the possible talks on tactical nukes, a weapons expert claimed that such a deployment will allow Seoul to maintain nuclear parity with the North and can allow the country to engage in disarmament talks on a more equal basis.
“Since South Korea will have nukes on its soil, it can better engage in negotiations with the North,” the source said.
On the other hand, there are quite a few in the country that are against any deployment. Those opposed said any move in that direction could actually give legitimacy to North Korea’s nuclear program and make it that much harder to get Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions.
They said a more plausible approach would be to deploy more U.S. strategic asset like bombers and stealth fighters on a rotational basis on the Korean Peninsula. This, they argued, will send a clear message to the North that its nuclear threats won’t work, without fueling overt confrontation.

The Sixth Seal: More Than Just Manhattan (Rev 6:12)


New York, NY – In a Quake, Brooklyn Would Shake More Than Manhattan

By Brooklyn Eagle
And Brooklyn, resting on sediment, would shake more than Manhattan, built on solid rock. “There would be more shaking and more damage,” Dr. Kim told the Brooklyn Eagle on Wednesday.
If an earthquake of a similar magnitude were to happen today near Brooklyn, “Many chimneys would topple. Poorly maintained buildings would fall down – some buildings are falling down now even without any shaking. People would not be hit by collapsing buildings, but they would be hit by falling debris. We need to get some of these buildings fixed,” he said.
But a 5.2 is “not comparable to Haiti,” he said. “That was huge.” Haiti’s devastating earthquake measured 7.0.
Brooklyn has a different environment than Haiti, and that makes all the difference, he said. Haiti is situated near tectonic plate boundaries, while Brooklyn is inside the North American plate, far from its boundary.
“The Caribbean plate is moving to the east, while the North American plate is moving towards the west. They move about 20 mm – slightly less than an inch – every year.” The plates are sliding past each other, and the movement is not smooth, leading to jolts, he said.
While we don’t have the opportunity for a large jolt in Brooklyn, we do have small, frequent quakes of a magnitude of 2 or 3 on the Richter Scale. In 2001 alone the city experienced two quakes: one in January, measuring 2.4, and one in October, measuring 2.6. The October quake, occurring soon after Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, “caused a lot of panic,” Dr. Kim said.
“People ask me, ‘Should I get earthquake insurance?’ I tell them no, earthquake insurance is expensive. Instead, use that money to fix chimneys and other things. Rather than panicky preparations, use common sense to make things better.”
Secure bookcases to the wall and make sure hanging furniture does not fall down, Dr. Kim said. “If you have antique porcelains or dishes, make sure they’re safely stored. In California, everything is anchored to the ground.”
While a small earthquake in Brooklyn may cause panic, “In California, a quake of magnitude 2 is called a micro-quake,” he added.

Seismic Studies Warn Of The Sixth Seal

The Eastern United States, let alone New York City, may not be prone to earthquakes, but that doesn’t mean we completely forgo seismology on the East Coast. Two of New York’s best universities — Fordham and Columbia — have been abuzz with activity as seismologists labor to chart the data and study the effects of Tuesday’s 5.8 earthquake that shook the city. Fordham actually houses New York State’s oldest seismic station, with instruments dating back to the early 1900s. Housed in an underground structure made from Gothic stone, the station, shown above, is a bit of a relic in itself.
East Coast Earthquake Map, east coast earthquake, new york earthquake, nyc seismology, fordham seismic station, columbia university seismology, east coast 5.8 earthquakeFordham physics professor Benjamin C. Crooker supervises the university’s William Spain Seismic Observatory, which was built in 1923. In an interview with the New York Times, Crooker could barely contain his excitement about the recent earthquake. “This was more motion than I’ve seen in the 16 years I’ve been doing this,” he said.
The station’s cylindrical steel seismometer confirmed that the Big Apple had experienced a 5.8 quake about nine seconds after 1:52 p.m. on August 23. The device is so sensitive that it can detect an earthquake of a 5.8 magnitude anywhere it occurs, but if that same strength quake were to hit New York City directly, the seismometer would likely be destroyed. According to legend, the observatory’s older devices are so sensitive that the university used to use horses to cut the grass above the station rather than machinery.
Dr. Meredith Nettles, a seismologist at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said that while we rarely feel earthquakes in NYC, small quakes are often recorded by the seismic centers. In fact, earlier on Tuesday, a 2.2 earthquake was recorded just 15 miles outside of Albany. Any tremor recorded, especially a larger one like the 5.8, gives scientists important insight into the geology and underground layout beneath our city.
“While the quake took 1.2 seconds to travel the 6.2 miles between Central Park and Fordham, an additional 1.29 seconds passed during the 5.6-mile journey from Fordham to Palisades,” write the New York Times. “Even subtle differences in travel time, Dr. Nettles said, can speak to the nature of rock or sediment beneath the surface.”
While Tuesday’s quake will definitely be remembered by New Yorkers, it was largely just a fleeting interruption to our daily lives. But it was most definitely a necessary reminder that just because we’re not on the San Andreas Fault, doesn’t mean we’re immune to earthquakes. Perhaps that little shake was just what we needed to make the need for stronger buildings and safer nuclear plants become more real.