From: Feroze Mithiborwala <feroze.moses777@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:45 AM
From: bobby anthony <bobbyanthony@gmail.com>
Date: 11 April 2010 21:29
Subject: !!!Goa readied as U$ Navy brothel!!!
DoD News Briefing - Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, DASD PA Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 1:30 p.m. EDT Quigley: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have one announcement this afternoon. The Center for Naval Analyses has selected the co-chairmen of a study group chartered to find suitable alternatives for training Atlantic Fleet naval forces. Retired Navy Admiral Leighton W. Smith andretired Marine Corps General Charles Wilhelm will lead the CNA effort that will include a group of retired senior military officers and analysts in a review of potential alternatives to Vieques. This group of experts will reinvigorate and build on previous efforts to find effective alternatives for training our forces in the Atlantic. The three primary training requirements are air-to-ground ordnance delivery, amphibious operations, and naval surface fire support. [ News release ] And with that I will take your questions. Q: First, any update on the General Shelton meeting to India? He is now about to leave India. And also -- (inaudible) -- India Globe and others report there might be U.S. military bases in India, and also U.S. soldiers will be trained in the Indian jungles in the Northeastern states. Quigley: Let me take the second one first. That story appeared two, three days ago, I want to say,and I can find no verification of its accuracy at all. So I cannot explain to you where that story originated, but I cannot find anybody in this building that is contemplating such a thing or negotiating such a thing, and so I'm at a loss to explain the origin of that story for you. On the first part, General Shelton's visit, he has felt that it's been very productive. He's met with the minister of Defense, met with the chief of Defense staff. Again, the focus of the talks as stipulated was to how can we advance a military-to-military relationship and talk about regional security concerns that are common between both India and the United States. So, a good set of talks. Q: Anything signed, or will be signed or -- Quigley: I don't believe so. I don't believe that was the goal. Q: That may follow -- (inaudible) -- visit to India? Quigley: Go ahead. I'm sorry? Q: That may follow the secretary's visit to India? Quigley: Once more? Once more, I'm sorry. Q: Secretary Rumsfeld, he may visit India, do you think? Quigley: I certainly can't rule that out, but nothing is scheduled at this point, no. Q: I just want to go back to the U.S. military bases in India. (Off mike) -- defense minister for India, Jaswant Singh -- he was asked a question in India, and he said that India has not ruled out for the possibility of U.S. military bases in India. And that -- (off mike) -- something was discussed during his visit here with the U.S. officials. But he said he had not ruled out -- Quigley: The best I can answer -- I take no issue with that. It's just not an issue that is being discussed or negotiated, that I can find, anywhere. Yes, sir? Q: Going back to the security dialogue in Monterey, that's going on in Monterey this week, could you tell us who heads the U.S. delegation? Quigley: No, I will not. Q: (Off mike.) Quigley: As I indicated before, I will not provide any details as to date, location, agenda, or attendees, other than to say that we will and have routinely discussed these issue with the Taiwanese. Q: Is one of the goals -- Q: (Off mike) - - Quigley: It's a government policy decision that we have taken for several years. Q: So you're not confirming the meeting? Quigley: I'm not. Q: Is one of the goals of the dialogue to increase the interoperability of the two militaries, by any chance? Quigley: I think I've got to stick with my original answer. Q: One more question, if I may. (Off mike) -- said the other day that the U.S. armed forces would do their absolute best to carry out the president's directive to intervene in a Taiwan Straits situation, if so ordered. Wouldn't that be a good idea, to have some kind of interoperability with the Taiwan armed forces? Quigley: Well, we'll do our best to carry out the directions of the commander-in-chief, whatever the circumstances might be. You can have a philosophical debate till sundown as to what might be the appropriate way of going about doing that, but there are very specific and sensitive particular details that are contained in the Taiwan Relations Act. We comply with those, no more, no less,and that's where I will leave that. Tom. Q: On QDR, the secretary yesterday expressed his dissatisfaction with the work of the team looking at force structure. There was a report this morning and the early word, I think, inside the Pentagon said that report had called for 24 carriers and two Army divisions, although it's unclear if it was cut by two or only two Army divisions. Is that report accurate? And can you also help us understand a little bit more, Admiral, where the disconnect is between the terms of reference and the work of these panels? Of the eight seven are run by civilians, one by the joint staff. The forces panel is run by civilians from PA&E, so who is misunderstanding the terms of reference? Quigley: Let me try to take those one at a time. One, I do not agree with your term "dissatisfaction." I was in the room yesterday. I did not hear him express his dissatisfaction at all. I heard a very different explanation come out of the secretary's mouth, and I would refer you to the transcript as to how, in this own words, he described that process. Second, I will not get into any of the parsing of the findings of any of the IPTs. Let the QDR be judged by its final product. And on the third one -- repeat the third one, Tom. I'm sorry. What was the third question? Q: Well, the third one goes to how the process works. Of the eight teams, seven of them are being run, managed by civilians, one by the joint staff. So when the secretary says they're either misinterpreting the terms of reference or there are ambiguities that must be dealt with, who is seeing the ambiguity, who is misinterpreting them? Quigley: I think his description yesterday want to when you get the secretary, the chairman, the service chiefs were the ones that crafted the terms of reference that the IPTs then took as their guidance to begin their work in their particular area, one of the eight that you refer to. Clearly, the senior group thought that their terms of reference were clear. They were unanimous in their agreement on the content and the wording of the terms of reference. But as the secretary said yesterday, clearly they missed on one, and that was a -- one of the specific terms of reference that gave the tasking to one of the IPTs, that they thought they understood one thing, they came back with an interim result to the secretary and the rest of the senior group, and it was clear there was a mismatch. So the senior group is clarifying further the terms of reference, the choice of words, the phrasing so that it is clear to the IPT what their tasking is. They'll go back, they'll do that again, and we'll move on. Q: But did the final report reflect the civilians from PA&E who lead that panel, or was that driven by the military? Quigley: Well, ultimately it's a collaborative process. It has been, it will continue to be. The secretary of Defense is responsible for the Quadrennial Defense Review. So the buck stops there, if you want to look at it that way. But the IPTs are composed of a combination of both services, the appropriate under secretaries' offices, whether it's acquisition or a budgetary issue or a people issue or what have you, as well as members of the Joint Staff. So you have all three of those elements working together under the leadership of a team leader. And then that team presents its findings to the senior group. And ultimately it's the secretary's Quadrennial Defense Review, andyou'll have a process where that will be submitted to the Congress. The chairman by statute is obliged to provide a risk assessment of that overall product. And that all needs to happen by the end of September. Yes, ma'am. Q: Do you have a pay, then, schedule back to China, the EP-3, if you are going to pay at all? Quigley: No. We do not. Q: And not any time soon. Will the House resolution affect the activities here? Quigley: Well, I believe it's not so much a resolution as it is a proposed amendment. Andit is proposed legislation. So it's a -- we're very much aware of it. But it is not into law yet. If it comes to that point, we will, of course, obey the law. Q: Can I ask one more question? On the meeting with Taiwanese officials, you said they had seven meetings. Is that during the past four years? Is that -- Quigley: Mm-hmm. Since 1997. Q: Does that mean twice a year, then, regularly? Quigley: It is not regularly in the sense of every X number of months they will have a meeting. It is not that regular. But it's a constant dialogue back and forth between the United States andTaiwan. When there are enough items on the agenda to be worthy of discussing, then they'll set a meeting. Q: Would you reveal the level of U.S. officials who -- Quigley: No, I can't. Barbara? Q: Can I just go back to Tom's question for a second and make sure that I actually understood? This team -- is it correct that this team is led by civilians, chaired by civilians, whatever, civilian OSD officials? And so when the secretary said yesterday, you know, "they" missed on what -- the product they delivered, since they, civilians, head this team, in fact then what he is referring to is the civilians who led this team missed the product that he wanted to see? Am I understanding that correctly? Quigley: I don't believe the secretary stipulated which of the IPTs he was referring to. Q: Well, the one -- but he was referring to one of them that is led by civilian officials? Quigley: Mm-hm. (Affirmative response.) Q: Right. Okay. Quigley: I mean, I don't think anybody's pointing fingers here and making some -- Q: I just want to make sure I understood. So when he -- Quigley: -- deep mystery out of this. Q: Right. But he did -- the one he referred to generically, let's say, is led by civilians. So he's -- he's not saying that military people missed, he's saying that the civilian head of the team missed? Quigley: In this case. Pam? Q: Could we have the terms of reference, if you strip out the -- like two or three classified paragraphs? Quigley: We are working to try to do just that. Q: That would make this a lot more understandable. Quigley: I understand. Yes, sir? Q: Today Japanese prosecutors in Okinawa judged Air Force sergeant who has been handed over prior to indictment. So any comment on that? And do you think that the length of the detention period is adequate or too long? Quigley: Oh, I won't offer a comment on whether I approve or disapprove of the Japanese legal system. But we continue to be quite satisfied that he is receiving fair and humane treatment at every step along the way. This marks a next step in the process. We'll continue to be very much a part of that. A lot of the rules change now that an indictment has been handed down against Sergeant Woodland. There is a different process, there's a different time line that's brought into play here. But again, there's absolutely nothing that we have seen so far that causes us any concern for him receiving anything other than fair and humane treatment every step along the way: language interpreters, legal counsel, a very good understanding of the legal process that's followed in Japan. We'll be following it very closely, but it is a next step in the process, and we'll be watching it every day. Dale. Q: Just -- and I apologize in advance -- to go back to Vieques one more time -- Quigley: Mm-hmm. Q: (Laughs.) We're now just a few days away from the referendum that the Puerto Rican government has scheduled on what should happen on Vieques. Does the department or the Navy have any plan to do anything between now and the date of that vote to try to influence the vote, to make an appeal to people to support the Navy or to stay home and don't take part in that referendum, or do anything that would influence that referendum? Quigley: I am not aware of any such activities that you describe, no. Yes. Q: Could I go back to China? Quigley: Uh-huh. Q: Is the department going to resume military exchanges with mainland China? Quigley: Would you ask that again? I'm sorry? Q: The military exchange with mainland China, the secretary has that -- (inaudible) -- to make it case by case -- Quigley: Oh. I'm -- okay, I understand. No. I mean, we are still there. It is being evaluated. Proposals are being evaluated on a case by case basis by the secretary. And that's still where we are. I know of no intention, at least in the near term, to change that process. Q: Any upcoming exchanges? Quigley: Not that I'm aware of, Bill, no. Yes. Q: May I go back to General Shelton's visit one more time to India? (Laughter.) This -- formal high level visits have been taking place to and from India to the U.S. and from the U.S. to India,and this is the highest level military visit to the -- to India under this (BJP) administration, and also the Indian defense minister was here. And suddenly President Bush also met with him while he was in the building here. What is going on suddenly between the two countries? There was a time when just years ago that the U.S. was not willing to talk to India at all and India was isolated, andnow suddenly that they are -- everybody is going to India, including Christine Rocca, the defense secretary for South Asia. She is leaving tomorrow, on Friday -- on Saturday. And as far as military-to-military relations and exchanges under review, where India stands on those terms? Quigley: I don't know if I can give you a really comprehensive answer to your question other than a desire to have as complete and appropriate mil-to-mil relationship with India as we can. India is a very strong democracy in a very important part of the world with whom we want to have good relationships, both between governments and between our militaries. And I think the steps that you're seeing here in the visits by both nations are a step down that path. Q: Will you provide more in detail after General Shelton returns to the U.S. about his visit to India? Quigley: We'll sure try. Q: Thank you. Q: Thanks. Quigley: Yeah. Jim. Q: On India, the sanctions -- I believe that there are some sanctions that limit the amount of military cooperation, at least military sales to India. Are they going to be lifted? Is that -- Quigley: They will not be an element under the Defense Department's control. I don't know. Ultimately that would come under the State Department. Yes. Q: If I could just follow, how far could you go, though, under the current sanctions regime in having military contacts with India? Quigley: I don't know. Let me take that. Let me take that, and we'll see what the current restrictions are. [Update: Sanctions imposed by law after the 1998 nuclear test in India prohibit transfers of military technology between the U.S. and India. The sanctions also prohibit foreign aid programs. Currently, a presidential waiver does permit assistance under the International Military Educationand Training (IMET) program. Sanctions do not prohibit military-to-military contacts such as discussions, exercises or port visits.] Q: Thank you. "THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS PREPARED BY THE FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE IS A PRIVATE COMPANY. FOR OTHER DEFENSE RELATED TRANSCRIPTS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE, CONTACT FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE AT (202) 347-1400."# # # # The Social Cost of U$ Military Pre$ence Emmi A. de Jesus 09 Dec 2006 Source: http://www.aprnet.org/index.php?a=show&c=Conference%20on%20US%20Militarism%20and%20War%20on%20Terror%20in%20the%20Asia-Pacific&t=conferences&i=93 "This is the god, this is my gun; one is for killing, one is for fun" so goes the lyrics of one of the U$ army's training song and this is even accompanied by lewd gestures. This song is reflective of the values that the U.S. Military is teaching its soldiers regarding women. And respect of women is not among these values. Hand in hand with prostitution is the rape andsexual abuse of women. Both are considered as the U.S. servicemen's outlets for pent-up aggression and efforts at domination or exerting one's manhood after feeling helpless and out of control in the war zone. Indeed, crimes committed by U.S. services are many and they include many cases violence against women. Legal documents show that from1981 to 1988, 2,005 cases were filed against U.S. servicemen in Subic and 1,269 cases were filed against the U.S. servicemen in Clark. All were dismissed. Records of the Olongapo City prosecutors office reveal that during the same period, fifteen cases of sexual abuse of children between ages 11 and 16 were filed in their office against US servicemen. All were dismissed. At least another 82 cases of sexual abuse of young women 16 years old and older were also dismissed. # # # # Campaign Against The Return Of Military Pro$titution Racist Attitudes / Caucasian Envy Source: http://www.preda.org/navyback.htm Military sex tourists had superior attitudes andtreated the locals as inferiors and spread the notion that "White was Right". Filipinos were discriminated against in many ways especially in earnings for equal work. They were paid much lower. Cultural Degradation and Loss of Filipino Dignity Through Sex Industry The feeling of inferiority was being reinforced not only through a colonial educational system but also through the decadent local governmental policies of giving more privileges to the American sailors. At an early age, children were taught that the Americans were superior and it was a privilege to work for them, so the youth aspired to that future. The more educated were able to leave Olongapo and make a better future, but the poor and unemployed worked in the commercial sex industry. Most Filipino males flocked to the US Naval Base to submit their application for the US Navy. A parents' dream for their child was to enter the US Navy to earn dollars. # # # # American Military Ba$e Pro$titution Jennifer Latstette Source: http://www.wm.edu/so/monitor/spring2000/paper6.htm As Bangkok increasingly became the center for military prostitution during the Vietnam War, the U.S. soldiers gradually became more open with their severe abuse of women. For example, soldiers began to refer to Re$t and Recreation sites as "Intoxication and Intercour$e breaks".[25] And they began to take, what the soldiers referred to as, "minor wives," which means that the soldier uses the same prostitute each time and may even lead the woman to believe that he loves her. The problem with this, according to Brock and Thistlethwaite, is that at the end of the war many minor wives are left with children of GIs ( a.k.a., souvenir babies) and no economic support.[26] Unfortunately, this practice merely perpetuates this endless cycle of prostitution and sex tourism because the minor wives are often mistakenly led to believe that they will marry a U.S. soldier and consequently obtain economic stability. This was rarely the case, and because these women had no economic base to support themselves with, many of their children (souvenir babies) felt as though it was their duty to help support the family by prostituting themselves as well. Likewise, this horrendous treatment of women did not stop here. U.S. soldiers became even more blatant with their malicious attitudes towards women. Katharine Moon says that in Okinawa the U.S. servicemen "could be seen in town wearing offensive T-shirts depicting a woman with the letters LBSM[1], which means Little Brown Sex Machine."[27] Continually, between 1962 and 1976, approximately 700,000 American soldiers were sent to Rest & Recreation (R&R) brothels in Thailand each year to recover from the stress of warfare.[28] Deplorably, this recovery comes at the expense of Thai and Filipino women's sense of self-worth and well-being. Furthermore, towards the end of the war when many soldiers were MIA (Missing In Action), "the saying was that there were no MIAs in Vietnam; in reality they were all MIBs -- Mischief In Bangkok."[29] This is probably a legitimate statement because where else can soldiers, or any man for that matter, feel justified essentially raping and victimizing women with government approval. And astonishingly, there is some truth to that statement. Many AWOL (Absent With Out Leave) soldiers have turned up in Thailand as brothel and bar owners because of the lucrative and accepted nature of prostitution.[30] Recently, Patpong (a major prostitution area in Bangkok) has begun to flourish because of these AWOL soldiers who converted tea houses into brothels.[31] There is no excuse for such blatant exploitation of Third World women by American soldiers. Soldiers who, by their nationality, claim to uphold the basic civil liberties guaranteed to all human beings. Military base prostitution has also played a significant role in the U.S. occupation of the Philippines. Since the American troops' departure in the early 1990s, the prevalence ofRest and Recreation sites have greatly diminished. Until their departure, however, the Philippines owned one of the largest Rest and Recreation establishments in Asia. Olongapo at Subic Bay, an American naval base near Manila, had such a huge problem with prostitution that the U.S. government funded the establishment of clinics for the military prostitutes to get checked for venereal diseases.[32] These clinics, however, were only accessible to those "hostesses" who were licensed to serve the U.S. soldiers, of whom there were approximately 6,000.[33] The fact that the American and Filipino governments collaborated in an effort to keep the U.S. soldiers safe from disease clearly illustrates the extent to which American troops abuse Third World women. The American notion of superiority pervades every aspect of military life, and because this superior attitude tends to transcend international borders, the Filipino government was quick to comply with military-base prostitution and set up the first clinic in 1970.[34] Racism permeated military occupation in the Philippines. Obviously, racism exists in every aspect of military-base prostitution, but none quite like that exhibited in Olongapo. A variation of the "Little Brown Sex Machine" T-shirt (sold in Okinawa) was marketed in Olongapo, only this time incorporating more offensive language and racial slurs. Katharine Moon states that this popular theme T-shirt among the troops "bears the message 'Little Brown Fucking Machines Powered with Rice.'"[35] So, not only do the American GIs ravage these women physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. Several reasons have been offered as to why American military men feel as though they can use Asian women to fulfill their sexual needs. One of the most prominent reasons offered is that prostitution is a derivative of the military mindset. In other words, military ideology consists of conquest, power, and dominance in which "sex becomes another vehicle of these values."[36] Sexual relations with prostitutes also involves the psychological act of dissociation, which is a central tenant to war. Soldiers frequently have to detach themselves from their surroundings in an attempt to condone their actions. Therefore, the notion that "prostitution reinforces psychological strategies of dissociation necessary for some men to survive military life" is another possible explanation.[37] However, none of these probable explanations condone the commoditization of women. Prostitution involves violence and abuse, it is an act of male domination that stems from the patriarchal order of modern society. The possibility exists that soldiers use prostitution as a means of "proving their strength and dominance by sexual and/or physical conquest".[38] The violent act of war creates individual feelings of powerlessness. Therefore it is possible that the act of dominating a woman allows the soldiers to regain a sense of power and control that is lost in the midst of warfare. Perhaps this is the reason why prostitution and war tend to coincide; they are both acts of domination, both faces of patriarchy. Laura Hein, author of "Savage Irony: The Imaginative Power of the 'Military Comfort Women' in the 1990s", believes that Japan will not recognize the mistreatment of the comfort women because "Their greatest concern is that recognition of the great harm done the military comfort women will both criminalize Japanese masculinity and diminish Japan's international power."[45] # # # # PLEASE NOTE: PROSTITUTION MUST SURELY BE DECRIMINALISED, SINCE PROSTITUTES ARE MERELY VICTIMS. ONLY PIMPS SHOULD BE ARRESTED. THIS IS A GENUINE DEMAND THAT OUGHT TO BE SUPPORTED. BUT WHEN FEMINAZI$ WHO HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE CIA PIMPS IN THE PAST BEGIN TO TALK OF "DECRIMINALISING" PROSTITUTION, ONE BEGINS TO WONDER IF THIS IS MEANT TO ENSURE THAT U$ MILITARY PER$ONNEL NEVER GET ARRESTED WHEN THE U$A SETS UP MILITARY BASE BROTHELS IN INDIA. IT IS ONLY AFTER SUCH "DECRIMINALISING" THAT PLAYBOY CLUBS, MILITARY PROSTITUTION BROTHELS AND SEX INDUSTRY CAN BE SET UP LEGALLY BY FOREIGNAND DOMESTIC INVESTORS. SURELY THIS WILL BE A "$UNRISE $ECTOR" IN INDIA!!! HOW COME SUCH CIA SPONSORED FEMINAZI$ LIKE GLORIA $TEINEM NEVER PROTEST AGAINST U$ MILITARY PRO$TITUTION IN SUBIC BAY NAVAL BASE IN THE PHILIPPINES? WHERE DOES THEIR SO-CALLED "FEMINISM" DISAPPEAR??? Decriminalise victims of sex-trafficking: AmeriKKKan 'activist' Kolkata | Monday, Dec 17 2007 IST Source: http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20071217/850158.html (UNI) Former journalist and renowned American "social activist" Gloria $teinem today stressed on the government's role in decriminalisation of the victims of human trafficking and the need to criminalise and penalise the perpetrators. Speaking at an open discussion on ''How Women Confront the Demand for Human Trafficking: Insights into Slavery and Emancipation'' at the American center here, Ms Steinem said the government needs to look into the details of various Acts and policies in human trafficking and women and child rights and define the parameters as to how far a victim is responsible for the situation. She gave special emphasis to India, where prostitution is still accepted legally in certain areas. Ms Steinem, who is also the founder of many feminist and women's rights NGOs, said a complete change is needed in the attitude of the people and the government bodies towards the victims of sex-trafficking. Ruchira Gupta, Founder andpresident of Apne Aap Women Worldwide, spoke on the need to deter the growing demand in the world''s third largest illegal trade - Human Trafficking. ''In countries like Sweden, this demand has been criminalised and we need to do the same in countries like Germany and India, where prostitution and other forms of women abuse is legally accepted in certain areas, so that the demand can be killed, yet the industry prevented from going underground.''The world's largest illegal trade are Drugsand Arms Trafficking. Flesh trade comes third, according to a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) report. Ms Gupta said this demand is increasing day by day, because the middlemen andthe ''customers'' keep increasing. ''Unless we can find a way to deter these elements, human trafficking will remain a fast growing trade,'' she said. Citing an NHRC report, Ms Gupta said it had been found that those men who visit brothels at night were the ones who abused their wives or children by day. While speaking on the legal steps taken to curb the demand, West Bengal Criminal Investigation Department Additional Director General of Police Bhupinder Singh said his department had taken a three-tier set of measures to contain the situation by sensitising police personnel, local and government bodies and NGOs to the problem, finding ways to rescue and rehabilitate the victims and conduct raids and special operations to nab the perpetrators. # # # # Introducing CIA's favourite FemiNAZI "feminist": Gloria $teinem!!! What is she doing in Kolkata!!!??? Is she eager to "decriminalise" prostitution, merely so that U$ Marines to be stationed in India can enjoy "Re$t and Recreation" singing: Pow pow! Easy come! Pow pow pow easy go! Pow pow! Easy come! Pow pow pow easy go! This is the good for my belief This is the gun for my relief This is the god This is the gun One is for killing One is for fun | |||||||||||||||
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment