Forums

This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 5/3/2018 10:05:04 AM
	Is US 'Mission Against ISIS' Really About Partitioning Syria? RT Tue, 01 May 2018 22:25 UTC © Rodi Said / Reuters US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighters Announcing the start of military operations against the remaining strongholds of Islamic State, the US State Department included some pointed language, hinting at de facto partition of Syria, analysts tell RT. "The days of ISIS controlling territory and terrorizing the people of Syria are coming to an end," State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said on Tuesday.The operations will be conducted by the US-led coalition and local partners, including the Kurdish-majority Syrian Democratic Forces. The US will also work with Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon to "secure their borders" from Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), Nauert said. This is intriguing, because the only remaining IS presence is near the Iraqi border, with a pocket south of Damascus currently being cleared out by Syrian government forces. Nauert also said the US will ensure there is a "strong and lasting footprint" in Syria so that IS cannot return and the liberated populations "are not exploited by the Assad regime or its Iranian supporters." Last week, the US House of Representatives passed the "No Assistance for Assad Act," or HR 4681. If approved by the Senate, it would mandate that any US funds for recovery, reconstruction or stabilization in Syria "should be used only in a democratic Syria or in areas of Syria not controlled by a government led by Bashar al-Assad or associated forces." Comment: So US politicians are refusing to help Syrians in need because of the government they democratically elected. How cold-hearted can politicians be? Between Nauert's statement and the House bill, a question arises on whether the US intends to allow the reintegration into the Syrian state of any areas liberated from IS. US statements supporting the territorial integrity of Syria "are only words" that serve as cover for "plans to partition Syria," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Saturday, after a meeting with Turkish and Iranian officials in Moscow. Lavrov had also warned earlier this year about Western plans to partition Syria. The State Department's language is "subterfuge,"former Pentagon official Michael Maloof told RT. The US and its allies intend to occupy the eastern part of Syria and partition the country, in order to "use the Sunnis in East Syria and West Iraq to form a barricade to stop any Iranian influence and cut off supplies to Hezbollah." Washington's objectives are aligned with the axis between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Maloof added, with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu hoping the US will fight Iran for Israel. "They will go alone if they have to and drag the US into it," Maloof told RT. "We're getting sucked into another war." Nauert's reference to a "future political settlement that honors the will of all Syrians, including Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Christians, Turkmen, and other minorities" could mean either regime change or some form of partition, former US diplomat Jim Jatras told RT. The State Department notably made no mention of Shia or Alawite Syrians. "Even if the Syrian government headed by President Assad remains in power in the west,"Jatras said, "de facto or de jure areas will be created for Kurds and particularly Sunnis." The reference to Turkmen could signal the possibility of permanent Turkish presence in, or even annexation of, some parts of Syria, he added. "ISIS is a sideshow. The real US targets are the Syrian government and its Russian and Iranian backers," Jatras said. "The stage is being set for a confrontation with Iran, in which Syria is simply one theater." "The reference to Christians is simply cynical. It is intended to make Americans think we give a damn about Syria's Christians, despite seven years of arming and funding jihadists for whom Christians are prime targets for murder and enslavement," Jatras explained. The US has approximately 2,000 troops in Syria, who are there without legal authorization. The Russian military contingent that has aided Damascus against IS and other terrorist groups arrived in September 2015 at the government's invitation. Comment: It speaks volumes that, as things currently stand, US forces are geographically situated BETWEEN Syrian and Russian forces and the remaining ISIS pockets on the Syrian-Iraqi border. Are they there, in fact, to protect what's left of the 'Islamic State'? (sott.net)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel

1162

61587

Lima

RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?

5/3/2018 10:28:03 AM

Iran Lied? Netanyahu Cries Wolf AGAIN as Trump Mulls Scrapping JCPOA

Corey Schink
Sott.net
Tue, 01 May 2018 21:36 UTC

© AMIR COHEN/ REUTERS
Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a news conference at the Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv, Israel April 30, 2018.

Every year or so Benjamin Netanyahu treats the entire globe to cartoonish nightmares of a 'nuclear Iran,' exhorting us all to do something 'before it's too late!' Just like with the 'global warming' myth, there's the exhortation that, if we just did something, we could all be saved. And, just like the global warming myth, we are never told 'it's too late' because then the myth loses its political usefulness.

In the latest edition that will no doubt dominate headlines for days, Netanyahu, utilizing a 'professional' PowerPoint presentation, provides what he calls incontrovertible proof that Iran had a nuclear weapons program and is still secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. He sums it up as follows:

"First, Iran lied about never having a nuclear weapons program. 100,000 secret files prove it did. Second, even after the deal, Iran continued to preserve and expand its nuclear weapons knowledge for future use," Netanyahu said.

"Third, Iran lied again in 2015 when it didn't come clear to the IAEA as required by the nuclear deal."

What about Israel lying that Iran would 'have the nuke' back in 1992, or 1995, or 1996, and that the world would be doomed?

Or what about when Netanyahu claimed that, "As dangerous as a nuclear-armed North Korea is, it pales in comparison to the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran. A nuclear-armed Iran in the Middle East wouldn't be another North Korea. It would be another 50 North Koreas." Flash forward to today, after multiple nuclear tests, the Korean peninsula just experienced a peace unlike anything they've known for generations. If Iran gaining the nuclear bomb is anything close to '50 times' that, then perhaps we should just give them a few!

But let's take Netanyahu's assertions at face value first, apply a little bit of evidence and logic, and see where that gets us.

First: 'Iran lied about having a 'nuclear weapons program'. Clearly it is, by now, common knowledge - Iran had a nuclear weapons program (that's why there is an 'Iran deal' in the first place), just as Israel had a nuclear weapons program. However, Israel's relied extensively on stolen US intelligence, and was considered by the CIA a proliferation threat due to its offer of nuclear materials to apartheid South Africa, and their joint testing of weapons. It also drastically altered the balance of power in the region, something which Netanyahu wants to keep despite the disastrous consequences.

Second - even after the deal, Iran continued to preserve and expand on its knowledge, and lied about it. Netanyahu's evidence here hinges on the claim that the alleged head of Iran's nuclear AMAD project, Fakhrizadeh, went on to run the SPND, or Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, and continued nuclear weapons research under its auspices. However this information was well known to the US State Department as early as 2014, when they sanctioned him and the SPND itself for its role in nuclear weapons research. And, in their 2015 Final Report the IAEA lays out quite clearly that they were well aware of this alleged 'secret nuclear weapons' center, where it was located, what it was doing, and that it was part of their analysis of Iran's nuclear program:

"Information available to the Agency prior to November 2011 indicated that Iran had arranged, via a number of different and evolving management structures, for activities to be undertaken in support of a possible military dimension to its nuclear programme. According to this information, the organisational structures covered most of the areas of activity relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information indicated that activities commenced in the late 1980s within Departments of the Physics Research Centre (PHRC) and later, under the leadership of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, became focused in the early 2000s within projects in the AMAD Plan, allegedly managed through the 'Orchid Office'. Information indicated that activities under the AMAD Plan were brought to a halt in late 2003 and that the work was fully recorded, equipment and work places were either cleaned or disposed of so that there would be little to identify the sensitive nature of the work that had been undertaken. Eventually, according to the information, a new organization known as the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research was established by Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and based at the Mojdeh Site near Malek Ashtar University in Tehran.

How are we to square these facts, then, with the claim that Iran 'lied to the IAEA' and that Netanyahu's presentation thus blew the lid off the entire operation? It's fairly difficult, since it was information commonly held by the most critical parties to the deal prior even to the year 2011, and the IAEA itself maintains that Iran is in full compliance. Instead it's easier to see it as simply more 'fear porn' issued in order to pressure Trump to scrap the deal and to further isolate Iran from the 'international community' (read Western nations).

But why scrap the deal? Because that's what it was made for - scrapping. The JCPOA only constrained Iran's ability to actually build a nuclear weapon within a 10-15 year time frame - well within the amount of time the West believed was necessary to topple Assad and move on to target Iran.

During that time however, no one expected Russia to intervene and completely re-balance the playing field in the Middle East. Rather, it was hoped that the world would see Iran throw away a 'good deal' and thereby legitimize foreign intervention. As a reportpublished by the Brookings Institute in 2009, titled Which Path to Persia, reveals,

"Regime change would seem far more palatable to Americans, Middle Easterners, Europeans, and Asians - and probably even to the Iranian people - if they believe that Iran had been offered a very good deal and turned it down. Indeed, if this is the perception among Iranians, more of them might be willing to oppose the regime. Thus, starting with some effort at Persuasion would be a good way to begin, but if regime change were really Washington's goal, the United States would have to ensure that the Iranians turned down the offered deal, while making sure that the deal looked attractive to others. ...

The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer - one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians "brought it on themselves" by refusing a very good deal."

As non-residential Georgetown professor Paul Pillar states regarding the scrapping of JCPOA, the last time a US administration kicked international inspectors out of a Middle Eastern country before they could get to the truth of WMDs, "it was a prelude to a long, costly, and highly destabilizing war." This time we won't see overt military intervention, as it probably is 'too late' even if Iran doesn't have the bomb - because it does have Russian military backing. Instead we can expect an increase in sanctions and rhetoric and, as Pompeo promised, an increase in covert operations.

Not that it will pan out the way they hope for, however. When Russia intervened in Syria their entire plan hit the skids - the jihadis lost, Assad is still in power, and Israel is no longer able to intervene unilaterally in her neighbors' affairs. Russia delivered the S-300 missile system to Iran in 2016 and, by all reports, they are now fully operational. Russia is also stepping up its delivery of the S-300 to Syria, flatly stating that Israel will suffer "catastrophic consequences" if it dares to target the system once it is in place.

(sott.net)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 5/3/2018 10:43:41 AM
	Activist Holds Up Sign Saying Police Hate Free Speech, So they Arrest Him to Prove Him Right MAY 2, 2018 By Matt Agorist Stamford, CT — Free speech and liberty activist, Michael Picard had harmed no one, had not committed a crime, and was merely expressing his right to free speech by claiming the Stamford PD dislikes free speech. Indeed, within just a few minutes, the chief of police himself came out to prove Picard right. Last Thursday, Picard held a sign that said, “Fck Free Speech —Stamford PD,” merely attempting to point out the gross violations of the First Amendment committed by the department after they arrested another activist, Michael Friend, for holding up a different sign warning drivers of a distracted driving checkpoint ahead. Friend was appearing before a judge last week after being charged with allegedly interfering in police duties by warning drivers of a checkpoint ahead. Because Friend was arrested for merely expressing his free speech by holding up a sign that said “Cops Ahead” to warn drivers, Picard went to the courthouse to voice his concern. Picard had on his GoPro camera which filmed the entire interaction; however, police confiscated it as evidence after his arrest. Luckily, Picard’s friend, Dawud Talib, was also at the courthouse to film the interaction. After a few minutes in front of the courthouse, Picard was confronted by Police Chief Jon Fontneau, who warned the free speech activist to stop expressing himself, or go to jail. Picard, knowing he was well within his rights to hold this sign up in front of a courthouse, refused. In response to Picard’s refusal to censor himself, Fontneau had him arrested and handcuffed. Picard was subsequently charged with breach of peace. “I found the sign to be offensive in front of police headquarters as people are coming in and out,” Fontneau said. “I don’t think our day-to-day residents should have to put up with something like that.” That decision, however, it not up to Fontneau. Indeed, this precedent has already been established in the United States Supreme Court case, Cohen v. California. The Court overturned a man’s conviction for the “crime” of disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket in the courthouse that displayed the phrase, “Fck the Draft.” Picard could not comment specifically on the case, however, he did note that “They have a checkpoint for everything nowadays,” adding, “They can’t stop infringing on your rights.” TFTP spoke with Picard’s attorney, Joseph R. Sastre who explained how unjust this charge against his client is. Connecticut’s breach of peace statute reads as follows: A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person’s property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, “public place” means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests. “I think the first sentence says it all,” Sastre told TFTP. “A person is acting like a mere fool when he sets out with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm. Charging protesters with this statute section, or another like it, sends a message that the police don’t think you have an opinion on anything.No, to them, a guy holding a sign is just an attention seeker, out to make a spectacle of himself. It is the equivalent of the abusive husband who tells his wife to ‘stop acting so hysterical’ when she tries to get him to consider her feelings, or to treat her better.” (activistpost.com)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 5/3/2018 11:13:40 AM
	Crimes are no longer a disqualification for Republican candidates Then-Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) outside his Capitol Hill office in 2014. He admitted to hiring undocumented workers, hiding $900,000 from tax authorities and making false statements under oath but thinks Staten Island Republicans should vote him back into office. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post) By Michael Scherer May 1 Former New York congressman Michael Grimm is a felon who has admitted to hiring undocumented workers, hiding $900,000 from tax authorities and making false statements under oath. To hear him tell it, that’s a reason Staten Island Republicans should vote him back into office. “It’s almost identical to what the president has been going through,” Grimm says of the federal investigation that led to his imprisonment. “It’s not an accident that under the Obama administration, the Justice Department was used politically. And that is all starting to come out.” Grimm has uncovered a new reality in the constantly changing world of Republican politics: Criminal convictions, once seen as career-enders, are no longer disqualifying. In the era of President Trump, even time spent in prison can be turned into a positive talking point, demonstrating a candidate’s battle scars in a broader fight against what he perceives as liberal corruption. In a startling shift from “law-and-order Republicans,” Trump has attacked some branches of law enforcement, especially those pursuing white-collar malfeasance, as his allies and former campaign officials are ensnared in various investigations. Following his lead, Republican Senate candidates with criminal convictions in West Virginia and Arizona have cast themselves as victims of the Obama administration’s legal overreach. Another former Trump adviser who pleaded guilty to a felony has also become an in-demand surrogate, as Republicans jump at the chance to show their opposition to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. “Here’s a general rule of thumb: Lawmakers should not be lawbreakers,” said Susan Del Percio, a New York GOP consultant who advised Grimm in 2010 but opposes his candidacy. “I guess it’s a different political norm we are facing today.” As the Russia investigation intensifies, President Trump has fluctuated his stance on the FBI's credibility and independence since the start of his presidency.(Joyce Koh/The Washington Post) Former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to a felony count of lying to the FBI, has become an unexpected star on the Republican campaign trail, with a planned appearance May 6 in Montana for Senate candidate Troy Downing. He plans to shoot skeet, dine with donors and hold a rally in the state, where select VIPs will be offered a chance to take their picture with him. A retired Army general, Flynn faces up to five years in prison after he admitted to making false statements about his contacts with Russian officials and his work for the government of Turkey. “It is time to stand up for our #American Heroes,” Downing wrote when he announced the event, shortly after Trump sent out a tweet suggesting again that the Justice Department had treated Flynn unfairly. In West Virginia, former coal baron Don Blankenship, who calls himself “Trumpier than Trump,” has advertised heavily about what he says is the injustice of his misdemeanor conviction for conspiring to violate mine safety laws, which sent him to prison for a year. Echoing Trump, Blankenship casts himself as a “political prisoner” who was targeted unfairly by the Obama administration after an explosion at one of his mines killed 29 people. In Arizona, former Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio is campaigning for Senate, with respectable fundraising and poll numbers, after receiving a pardon from Trump for his conviction on a misdemeanor contempt of court charge for his failure to follow a judicial order to curtail his immigration enforcement efforts. The conviction has done little to dampen the praise he continues to receive from the Republican establishment. At an event Tuesday in Tempe, Ariz., Vice President Pence introduced Arpaio as a “favorite,” calling him “a tireless champion of strong borders and the rule of law who has spent a lifetime in law enforcement.” Controversial former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is running for Senate in Arizona this fall. (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Caitlin O'Hara/The Washington Post) Arpaio has compared his prosecution, which he considers politically motivated, to Republican claims that the Obama administration improperly sought warrants to monitor officials connected to the Trump campaign. “It’s not something that has affected my campaign,” Arpaio said of his conviction, noting that a recent Magellan Strategies poll found him running second in a three-person race with a 67 percent favorable rating among Republican primary voters. The campaigns are playing out in the shadow of a public effort by Trump and his allies to discredit the Justice Department’s investigation of the 2016 election. Trump has called it a “total witch hunt” and called Mueller’s investigators “the most biased group of people.” The message is getting through to Trump supporters. A recent NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll found declining support for Mueller and his investigation among Republicans. In the second week of April, 55 percent of Republicans said the investigation was “not fair,” up from 46 percent in March. The same poll found 56 percent of Republicans thought the FBI was biased against the president. “The whole world changed when Attorney General [Loretta] Lynch met on the tarmac with former president [Bill] Clinton,” said Michael Caputo, a former adviser to Trump who has been helping the Grimm campaign, referring to an encounter during the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of private emails for work. “The lines between politics and law enforcement have been blurred for a decade, but they are absolutely indistinguishable now.” In California, Republican candidate Omar Navarro, 29, who is running against Rep. Maxine Waters (D), invited Arpaio and Flynn to fundraisers on his behalf, saying both drew large crowds and enabled him to raise more money. “When I knock doors, and I knock a lot of different doors and meet a lot of people, and they will see Flynn on my endorsement or they will see Arpaio,” he said. “A lot of people will say that guy was unfairly prosecuted.” Navarro has legal troubles of his own. He recently pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge related to placing a tracking device on his wife’s car without her knowledge. He said local prosecutors moved forward with their case even after his wife said she did not object to the device, which he says was intended to protect the car against theft. “I’m not here to complain about who has done me wrong, or how unfairly I have been treated or how unfair the entire process has been,” Flynn said at the start of his remarks for Navarro, getting sympathetic laughs from the crowd. “You know, it is what it is.” Grimm says if he is elected, he will use his experience to become a “credible voice” in Congress to denounce what he and Trump call political bias in the Justice Department, particularly in the investigation by Mueller. Early polls in the congressional district that also encompasses a slice of Brooklyn suggest the argument has legs. Grimm recently benefited from the endorsement of former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci, who will hold a May fundraiser for the campaign in Staten Island. Grimm’s opponent, incumbent Rep. Daniel Donovan (R-N.Y.), says he expects the primary fight to be tighter than any race he has run. Donovan, a former federal prosecutor, rejected Grimm’s comparison of his situation to Trump’s. “The president has never been indicted, the president didn’t perjure himself under oath, the president hasn’t confessed to a federal crime,” Donovan said about Grimm’s argument. “I put my record up against his, quote, record.” (In court documents, Grimm admitted to making false statements under oath in a deposition, not perjury, which has a different burden of proof under the law.) Grimm, a former FBI agent, does not dispute the facts that led to his guilty plea, which arose from his operation and part-ownership of a Manhattan restaurant. But he argues on the campaign trail that the decision by the FBI and federal prosecutors to seek his conviction was a political act, meant to remove him from Congress. He said he should have faced a civil penalty instead. Grimm says only some convicted criminals have a justification to run in a Republican primary. “You can’t say a guy that was an ax murderer can use this,” he said. “It has to be that you only were criminalized because of the politicization of the Justice Department.” Read more at PowerPost (The Washington Post)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1

Luis Miguel 1162 61587 Lima	RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES? 5/3/2018 3:52:21 PM
	US Air Force boasts testing of new nuclear gravity bomb going ‘extremely well’ Published time: 3 May, 2018 01:01 Edited time: 3 May, 2018 08:45 B-2 Spirit bomber © US Air Force / Flickr The US Air Force is boasting of progress in upgrading and testing of its atomic arsenal, under the new aggressive posture that lowers the threshold for use of nuclear weapons and sets Washington on a collision course with Russia. Plans to spend over $1 trillion to modernize the US “nuclear triad” – nuclear bombers and missiles launched from land-based silos and submarines – have received a boost, in the form of the new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and increased military budgets under the Trump administration. “We've already conducted 26 engineering, development and guided flight tests” of the B61-12 gravity bomb, Lieutenant General Jack Weinstein told the Air Force Association breakfast on Tuesday. “The program's doing extremely well.” Weinstein is the deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration at the USAF headquarters in Washington, DC. Oriana Pawlyk ✔@Oriana0214 ICYMI: Air Force Advances Testing of New Nuclear Gravity Bomb: General http://bit.ly/2rf2Dmb via @Militarydotcom 7:33 AM - May 2, 2018 Air Force Advances Testing of New Nuclear Gravity Bomb: General The U.S. Air Force has conducted dozens of developmental flight tests of the B61-12 guided nuclear gravity bomb. military.com 26 28 people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy The newest version of the B61, which has been in development for at least seven years, should be three times more accurate than its predecessors and have underground penetration capability. The gravity bomb’s original design dates back to 1963. The modernized bomb is intended for arming the handful of B-2 Spirit bombers currently in service, as well as the upcoming B-21 Raider, which is still on the drawing board. The F-15 and F-16 legacy fighter jets should also be capable of carrying the upgraded bomb. Read more Washington’s ‘crackpot’ nuclear posture endangers the world to an alarming degree Washington’s updated nuclear posture review, unveiled in early February, envisions the possibility of atomic weapons responses to certain conventional attacks as well as the use of low-yield weapons. The B61’s yield ranges from 0.3 to 50 kilotons. The first nuclear bomb ever used, against the Japanese city of Hiroshima, had a 15-kiloton yield. The Russia-obsessed NPR prompted Russian President Vladimir Putin to warn the US in March that “any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a nuclear attack on our country”and met with an “instant” and appropriate response. Deploying more B61 bombs to NATO bases in Europe would also violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Russia has warned. With the B-21 still years away, the NPR has called for making the F-35 Lightning II fighter jets capable of carrying the B61. As the F-35 program is beset by a series of its own problems, this is not expected to happen until sometime in the next decade, however. The Air Force is also hoping to extend the life of its B-52 Stratofortress bombers, first introduced in the 1950s, into the mid-21st century. To do so, however, the B-52s need new engines, and that won’t be cheap, Weinstein said. “Am I going to sit here and say we're not going to have a problem with the re-engining? I'm not going to say that,”the general said, according to Military.com. The Air Force is asking for $1.5 billion or so in the 2019 budget to start the effort to get new engines for the B-52 fleet. That program is expected to have a lifetime cost of up to $8 billion. (RT)
	"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
	+1