NucNews December 16, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Mishap in dismantling nuclear warhead December 16. 2006 KAZINFORM http://www.inform.kz/showarticle.php?lang=eng&id=147058 AUSTIN - A watchdog group charges a nuclear warhead nearly exploded in Texas when it was being dismantled at the government's Pantex facility near Amarillo. The Project on Government Oversight says it has been told by knowledgeable experts that the warhead nearly detonated in 2005 because an unsafe amount of pressure was applied while it was being disassembled, The Austin American-Statesman reports. The U.S. Energy Department fined the plant's operators $110,000 last month. An investigator for Project on Government Oversight says the weapon involved was a W-56 warhead with 100 times the destructive power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The watchdog group says the problem was caused in part by technicians at the plant being required to work up to 72 hours each week. They released an anonymous letter, reportedly sent by Pantex employees, warning that long hours and efforts to increase output were causing dangerous conditions at the plant. A spokesperson for the Energy Department declined to respond to safety complaints in the letter, Kazinform has learnt from UPI. -------- china China opts for US firm over French in nuclear energy deal BEIJING (AFP) Dec 16, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061216132632.utf8set3.html China has signed an agreement to buy four nuclear power plants from American firm Westinghouse, scuppering a possible deal with French company Areva, a US official said Saturday. "China has agreed to purchase four new nuclear reactors for the Westinghouse Electric Company," US Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said in a statement released by the US embassy in China. "This represents a multibillion dollar commitment by the Chinese that should create some 5,500 jobs in the United States." The American firm was taken over by Japanese company Toshiba at the beginning of the year. Beijing chose the "third generation" Westinghouse reactors over Areva's for technological reasons, Chinese officials said in a statement. The long-running tender process was launched in September 2004. The contract will lead to the construction of four reactors, divided between Sanmen, in Zhejiang province, and Yangjiang, in Guangdong, and is part of the Chinese government's drive to increase its nuclear energy production. "This is an exciting day for the US nuclear industry," Bodman was quoted as saying in the statement, after signing a protocol agreement in the Chinese capital with Ma Kai, minister in charge of the State Development and Reform Commission (SDRC), the major planning body in China. Bodman, who had taken part in Friday and Saturday's "strategic economic dialogue" between China and the US, said the agreement showed what could be achieved between the two countries. "It is an example that if we work together we can advance not only our trade relations but also our common goal of energy security," he added after joining the energy ministers of China, India, Japan and South Korea at a meeting in Beijing. Reports early this year said Areva would not get the deal, something the company denied, insisting they were "on course" to secure the contract. France's nuclear industry has long been engaged in supplying reactors to China, with four of the nation's 11 nuclear reactors currently operating being French-made. French President Jacques Chirac used an official visit to China in October to push the Areva deal, "faced with a (Westinghouse) project that only exists on paper, from people who have not built anything for a long time". Areva has been operating in China for the past 26 years. Chirac said there was "a political dimension (in the case) and also a question of balanced trade on the foreign side that is not in our favor", referring to a ballooning US trade deficit with China. During trade talks Thursday and Friday, US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson made a new appeal to his Chinese partners for "tangible results" in settling their disputes, warning of a rising tide of protectionism in the United States. The US trade deficit with China has hit a record 240 billion dollars this year. Bodman said: "(This deal) will help our balance of payments -- it's a multibillion dollar transaction." In a statement Saturday, the US Commerce Secretary Carlas Guttierrez said the agreement was "an important victory, both for Sino-American relations and Westinghouse workers. "This agreement reinforces once again the economic relations the United States has with its second-biggest trade partner and shows China taking a big step in opening new markets to American services and products." Ma, from the SDRC, said: "This project of cooperation will certainly play a very important role in enhancing the cooperative partnership between China and the US. "Frankly speaking, this is only the start. We still need hard work to realize reliable, safe nuclear power plants." ---- Westinghouse Wins Massive China Nuclear Deal By REUTERS December 16, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-china-nuclear-westinghouse.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin BEIJING ( Reuters) - U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric Co. has won a two-year battle for a multibillion-dollar nuclear power deal with China, edging out French and Russian rivals to secure a contract that may help Beijing smooth ties with Washington. The deal, estimated in the past at some $8 billion, should warm relations between the world's top two energy consumers, who have clashed lately over a range of issues from the yuan currency to the Chinese bid for U.S. independent oil firm Unocal. It will also reaffirm China -- now a laggard in the nuclear sector -- at the forefront of a global trend toward increased use of atomic power, touted by many nations as the cleanest, cheapest solution to the world's strained energy industry. ``(The agreement) represents a major step forward in our relations and will advance our bilateral trade relationship and the energy security of both our nations,'' U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in a statement after signing the memorandum with Ma Kai, the chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China's powerful energy policymaking body. He said it would help the U.S. balance of payments and create more than 5,500 U.S. jobs. The United States had a record $202 billion trade deficit with China last year. Westinghouse, based in Pittsburgh but now owned by Japan's Toshiba Corp., had been pressing to win tenders to build China's third generation of nuclear power plants since 2004, and offered a significant technology transfer to secure it. Other suitors included France's Areva, with French President Jacques Chirac lobbying Beijing on an October visit, and Russia's Atomstroiexport. China said it chose Westinghouse partly because of technology transfer and issues of self-reliance and localisation of technology, it said in a statement. But given Toshiba's presence, the deal may have also been eased by a thaw in ties with Japan after Shinzo Abe took over as Prime Minister earlier this year promising to patch up a relationship that had sunk to its worst in decades. Analysts say China hopes to use the deal, which came after a two-day visit to Beijing by the U.S.'s top economic policy-makers and amid fears of a surge in protectionist sentiment, to soothe more than just energy ties. ``This is all relationship driven,'' said David Hurd, energy analyst at Deutsche Bank in Beijing. ``The U.S. is putting pressure on China at the moment so China's response is 'let's throw them a bone','' he added. WORKING BY 2013 Stephen Tritch, Westinghouse Electric Co. President and CEO, said the four plant deal was a multi-billion dollar one, but gave no specifics. Past estimates put the deal at $8 billion. The two sides aim to move from the memorandum of understanding signed on Saturday to a framework agreement and then draw up a contract within several months. The 1.1 gigawatt plants will use Westinghouse's advanced AP1000 design, which was only fully certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year. In an undated brief on its Web site, Westinghouse estimates capital costs for the reactor at less than $1,200 per kilowatt, which would take the total expenditure to about $5.3 billion. Tritch said the company, which says its technology is the basis of nearly half the world's operating nuclear plans, wants the units up and running by 2013. The company's Web site says the AP1000 plants take about three years to build. China, the world's second-largest energy consumer, is working fast to make up for its weakness in the nuclear sector, which generates only about 2.3 percent of its electricity compared with three-quarters in France or more than a quarter in Japan. Beijing plans to spend some 400 billion yuan ($50 billion) on building around 30 new nuclear reactors by 2020, lifting the share to 4 percent and raising its installed nuclear capacity to 40 gigawatts -- nearly enough to power Spain. It currently has only nine working reactors. ATOMIC RENAISSANCE The deal may give a fillip to the global nuclear industry, now emerging from decades of malaise due to safety concerns. ``It is my hope that this very serious commitment by the Chinese government will help persuade the nuclear power industry in the U.S. that now is the time to commit to building new nuclear power plants in our country to expand our own sources of clean, emissions-free electric power and further diversify our energy portfolio,'' Bodman said. In a report last month responding to G8 calls for an energy blueprint, the International Energy Agency said nuclear power offered the best hope for slowing climate change and increasing energy security, its strongest ever backing of atomic energy. With an estimated $20 trillion of investment in new energy supplies required to meet demand by 2030, nuclear power is an increasingly attractive option for governments confronted with an increasing dependence on costlier, imported oil or natural gas, and those trying to halt global warming by cutting back on coal. Nuclear plants generated just 15 percent of the world's electricity last year, the rest produced mainly from gas or coal. -------- depleted uranium U.S. shouldn't use depleted uranium Saturday, December 16, 2006 Pantagraph http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2006/12/17/opinion/letters/121846.txt Do you know what depleted uranium is? That is a question I have asked several people recently and the answer more often than not is a blank stare. They have no idea what it is. It is understandable given the state of things that so many people would remain oblivious to this horror that the United States, the United Kingdom and most recently Israel have been scattering in huge quantities across whole regions of the world. Understandable, but not acceptable. Depleted uranium is radioactive material left over after the enrichment process used to create fuel for nuclear power plants. A 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant will create roughly 37 tons of DU every year. The Department of Energy gives the stuff to the Department of Defense, which uses it in artillery shells and other armaments. It penetrates tough tank armor, so it is a very effective tank killer. But the tragic problems lie in its long-term effects. As it impacts its target, much of it pulverizes down to tiny dust particles that can be breathed in and lodged in the lungs. There it causes conditions such as cancer, birth defects, etc., that are linked to radioactive material. The harm caused to the region and beyond is indiscriminant, impossible to clean up and essentially eternal in duration. The half life of DU is said to be over 4 billion years. Doug Rokke, a U.S. Army officer and physician, sent by the Pentagon to study the effects of DU and possible approaches for cleaning it up, came to the conclusion that the use of DU weaponry is ``a crime against God and humanity.'' I believe him. Google search key words and names in this letter. See for yourself. Gregg Brown Bloomington -------- india India's top nuclear scientists oppose US deal NEW DELHI (AFP) Dec 16, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061216103913.pe6sogls.html India's top nuclear scientists have repeated their fears that a landmark nuclear deal with the United States will place limitations on the country's weapons programme, the media reported Saturday. The deal allows the export of nuclear fuel and technology to energy-hungry India for the first time since it first tested a nuclear device in 1974. US President George W. Bush is expected to sign the accord on Monday. But the scientists said the final version of the bill, which reconciled versions of the legislation approved by the US House of Representatives and Senate, contained clauses that India had previously objected to. "The act makes it explicit that if India conducts such tests, the nuclear cooperation will be terminated," the scientists said in a statement published by the Asian Age newspaper. Three former chairmen of the country's Atomic Energy Commission were among those who signed the statement. Under the deal announced by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Bush in July 2005, India, a non-signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), agreed to place its civilian-use reactors under global scrutiny. The agreement includes a set of international safeguards to be approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog, and to which India must adhere. The scientists also raised objections to other clauses, which require India's participation in US efforts to "dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran" in its alleged efforts to develop nuclear weapons. "These stipulations... constitute intrusion into India's independent decision-making and policy matters," the statement said. The scientists have appealed to the government to convey their concerns to the US administration. Prime Minister Singh is expected to make a statement on the agreement in parliament on Monday, after which lawmakers will discuss the deal. The deal still requires the endorsement of the influential 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group. ---- Oslo undecided about allowing India access to nuclear technology Amit Baruah Saturday, Dec 16, 2006 The Hindu http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/16/stories/2006121606291200.htm NEW DELHI: Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store said on Friday that his Government was "reserving its final position" on allowing India access to civilian nuclear technology through the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) route. "Let me just say that we respect India's right to develop its nuclear energy resources. At the same time, we are emphasising the need to safeguard the international regime that can look after verification and monitoring of nuclear energy and nuclear materials," he said in an interview. "We must be careful not to strike agreements which weaken this hard-won gain — the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the NPT [Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty] and so on," he said in implicit criticism of the India-U.S. civilian nuclear deal. (Norway, along with Sweden, is among the countries known to have reservations about India's civilian nuclear initiative through cooperation with the U.S. The position of all members of the 45-nation NSG is critical to India since all decisions in this informal club are taken by "consensus.") Asked whether India putting 14 nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards was not a "positive" development, he said this was the "positive" side of the agreement. "Still, there are those [reactors] that remain on the outside." On Norway's role in the war-like situation prevailing in Sri Lanka, Mr. Gahr Store stressed that Oslo was a facilitator not a mediator. So, no finger could be pointed at Norway. There was no future in pursuing a military solution. The parties must be brought back to the political track, he added. -------- mideast Iran Offers to Transfer Nuke Technology By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS December 16, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-Nuclear.html?pagewanted=print TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday his country was ready to transfer nuclear technology to neighboring countries, nearly a week after Arab states on the Persian Gulf announced plans to consider a joint nuclear program. Ahmadinejad told a top Kuwaiti envoy he welcomed the decision by the Islamic republic's Arab Gulf neighbors to pursue peaceful nuclear technology, state-run television said. ''The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer to regional states its valuable experience and achievements in the field of peaceful nuclear technology as a clean energy source and as a replacement for oil,'' state media quoted Ahmadinejad as telling Mohammed Zefollah Shirar, a top adviser to the Kuwaiti emir. Such a technological transfer would be legal as long as it is between signatory states to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, and as long as the International Atomic Energy Agency that monitors the treaty is informed of the transfer. Iran is at odds with the United States and its European allies over its nuclear program. The Western powers are seeking a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for its program, which the U.S. and Europe say is aimed at producing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is solely for the peaceful production of nuclear energy. In Washington, Edgar Vasquez, a State Department spokesman, told The Associated Press on Saturday that Iran's continued defiance of international nuclear safeguards represents ''a serious threat'' to maintaining peace and stability in the region. ''We expect Iran to comply with international obligations under the NPT and its safeguards agreement with the IAEA,'' Vasquez said. ''Iran's noncompliance up to this point is a serious threat, which we continue to work with our international partners and the international community in the U.N. Security Council to remedy.'' Unlike Iran, the United States said it had no problem with Gulf Arab states developing nuclear energy capability because they show no interest in using the technology to build atomic weapons. The Gulf Corporation Council -- made up of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman -- said last week it was commissioning a study on setting up a nuclear energy program for peaceful purposes, which would abide by international standards and laws. Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said Friday that a deal was emerging on a resolution to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment. Ambassadors from six key nations drafting the resolution -- Britain, France, Germany, the U.S., Russia and China -- reported some progress at the latest round of talks. But Russia said it opposes a U.S. and European proposal to ban travel against top Iranian officials. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly and defiantly said his country would continue enrichment and is not intimidated by the possibility of sanctions. Associated Press writers John Heilprin in Washington and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report. ---- Iran offers Arab states nuclear technology TEHRAN (AFP) Dec 16, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061216131327.icqpi6lz.html President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday offered to share Iranian-made nuclear technology with Arab states in the Gulf after they expressed a desire to acquire it, Iranian media reported. "The Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to provide its experience and valuable achievements in peaceful nuclear technology as a clean source of energy and as oil replacement to all regional countries," Ahmadinejad told a visiting Kuwaiti envoy, Mohammed Zeyfullah Shirar. Ahmadinejad's offer comes a week after Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) leaders ended a two-day summit in Riyadh by announcing they planned to seek nuclear energy technology. They said in a statement that "the states of the (Gulf) region have a right to possess nuclear energy technology for peaceful purposes ... within the context of the pertinent international agreements." The GCC leaders also called for a peaceful settlement of the crisis over Iran's nuclear program, which the West suspects could be cover for nuclear weapons development. Iran insists it only wants to produce electricity for its growing population. -------- u.s. nuc weapons Panel Seeks Consensus On U.S. Nuclear Arsenal By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, December 16, 2006; A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/15/AR2006121501807_pf.html A prestigious Defense Department advisory panel has determined there is no national agreement on what the nation needs in the way of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War period. In a recently released declassified version of a report on U.S. nuclear capabilities completed earlier this year, the Defense Science Board reported that its task force on the subject concluded "there is a need for a national consensus on the nature and role of nuclear weapons, as well as a new approach to sustaining a reliable, safe, secure and credible nuclear stockpile." The task force found "most Americans agree that as long as actual or potential adversaries possess or actively seek nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, the United States must maintain a deterrent to counter possible threats and support the nation's role as a global power and security partner." Beyond that, however, it found "sharp differences." William Schneider Jr., the board's chairman, said yesterday that the report "reflects the fact that the post-Cold War environment has changed, but there is no real consensus of what to do with the nuclear posture we were left with that was designed for use against the Soviet Union." The report, which talks of a "lack of genuine debate" over nuclear weapons in the future, calls on senior administration officials "to engage more directly to articulate the case for nuclear transformation that provides an integrated vision of the role of nuclear weapons . . . and the prospects for further stockpile reductions." Plans call for reducing the stockpile of about 10,000 warheads, of which 6,000 were deployed. The administration wants Congress to continue funding refurbishment of deployed nuclear weapons and support development and future production of the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a design for which is expected to be finalized within months. In addition, it wants approval for Complex 2030, a costly program for rebuilding the 50-year-old nuclear facilities where the weapons are both assembled and disassembled. One of the science board's recommendations is that the weapons complex "be capable of producing a predetermined number of RRW-class warheads per year by 2012," the date by which the current level of deployed, older-but-refurbished warheads is to drop to a level of 1,700 to 2,200. The science board consists of about 40 scientists and other experts who advise on technical issues, acquisition programs and other matters of interest to the Defense Department. The nuclear task force was co-chaired by John Foster, a former head of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who once ran Pentagon research and development, and retired Gen. Larry Welsh, former Air Force chief of staff. The science board voices concern that one "influential segment of the U.S. population" has what the report describes as an "entrenched set of views" that transforming the stockpile with new warheads "is the wrong way to shape the security environment" because it runs against the U.S. goal of preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons. Such political opposition has caused "little progress to date in evolving needed U.S. nuclear capabilities to address effectively the more diverse range of potential threats likely to emerge in the 21st century," the report says. The report has become public as one Democrat, who will be taking over a congressional subcommittee that oversees nuclear weapons programs, has indicated she plans to take a hard look at the program. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), who will chair the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces that authorizes the weapons program, said in an interview this week that she plans to study the program and the underlying numbers and rationale established five years ago by the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review. Tauscher, whose district contains two of the nation's nuclear laboratories, opposed earlier administration plans for a new generation of warheads with new capabilities, and helped defeat research on the nuclear "bunker buster." Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project of the Federation of American Scientists, who first called attention to the science board's report, described it as an effort to "resell" the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review. "I hope when Congress returns in the new year it will hear others than the old gang promoting that program," he said. View all comments that have been posted about this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2006121501807 -------- MILITARY -------- us About Face: Soldiers Call for Iraq Withdrawal by MARC COOPER The Nation December 16, 2006 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070101/cooperweb For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. (Note: A complete version of this report will appear Thursday in the print and online editions of The Nation.) After appearing only seven weeks ago on the Internet, the Appeal for Redress, brainchild of 29-year-old Navy seaman Jonathan Hutto, has already been signed by nearly 1,000 US soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, including dozens of officers--most of whom are on active duty. Not since 1969, when some 1,300 active-duty military personnel signed an open letter in the New York Times opposing the war in Vietnam, has there been such a dramatic barometer of rising military dissent. Interviews with two dozen signers of the Appeal reveal a mix of motives for opposing the war: ideological, practical, strategic and moral. But all those interviewed agree that it is time to start withdrawing the troops. Coming from an all-volunteer military, the Appeal was called "unprecedented" by Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice. The Nation spoke with rank-and-file personnel as well as high-ranking officers--some on the Iraqi front lines, others at domestic and offshore US military bases--who have signed the Appeal. All of their names will be made available to Congress when the Appeal is presented in mid-January. Signers have been assured they are sending a communication to Congress protected under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. The Pentagon is powerless to take official reprisals and has said that as long as active-duty personnel are not in uniform or on duty, they are free to express their views to Congress. There are of course other, subtler risks involved. The military command exercises enormous power through individual reviews, promotions and assignments. But that hasn't kept a number of signers from going public with their dissent. Navy Lieut. Cmdr. Mark Dearden of San Diego, for example, enlisted in 1997 and is still pondering the possibility of a lifetime career. "So this was a very difficult decision for me to come to. I don't take this decision lightly," he says. But after two "tough" deployments in Iraq, Dearden says signing the Appeal was not only the right thing to do but also gave him personal "closure." "I'm expressing a right of people in the military to contact their elected representatives, and I have done nothing illegal or disrespectful," Dearden adds. Other interviews with active-duty soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen who have signed the Appeal for Redress reveal an array of motivations. Here are excerpts: "Lisa"--20 years old, E-4, USAF, Stationed at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii: I joined up two weeks after I turned 17 because I wanted to save American lives. I wanted to be a hero like any American child. I supported the war when I joined because I thought it was justified. Only after my own research and the truth coming out did I learn how wrong I was, how--for lack of a better word--how brainwashed I was. Now I know the war is illegal, unjustified and that our troops have no reason for being there. When I saw an article about the Appeal in the Air Force Times I went online right away and signed it and have encouraged others to do the same. "Sgt. Gary"--21 years old. US Army. Deployed with 20th Infantry Regiment, near Mosul, Iraq: I joined up in 2001, still a junior in high school. I felt very patriotic at the end of my US History class. My idea of the Army was that you signed up, they gave you a rifle and you ran off into battle like in some 1950s war movie. The whole idea of boot camp never really entered my head. I supported the war in the beginning. I bought everything Bush said about how Saddam had WMDs, how he was working with Al Qaeda, how he was a threat to America. Of course, this all turned out to be false. This is my second tour, and as of a few days ago it's half-over. Before I deployed with my unit for the second time I already had feelings of not wanting to go. When in late September a buddy in my platoon died from a bullet in the head, I really took a long hard look at this war, this Administration, and the reasons why. After months of research on the Internet, I came to the conclusion that this war was based on lies and deception. I started to break free of all the propaganda that the Bush Administration and the Army puts out on a daily basis. So far in three years we have succeeded in toppling a dictator and replacing him with puppets. Outlawing the old government and its standing army and replacing them with an unreliable and poorly trained crew of paycheck collectors. The well is so poisoned by what we have done here that nothing can fix it. "Lt. Smith"--24 years old, 1st Lieutenant, US Army. Deployed near Baghdad: I cannot, from Iraq, attend an antiwar protest. Nor could I attend one in the States and represent myself as a soldier. What I can do is send a protest communication to my Congressional delegate outlining grievances I feel I have suffered. Appeal for Redress gives me that outlet. I am encouraged by the November elections, but still wary. We rushed into the war on false assumptions, and now we might rush out just as falsely. What troops need now is a light at the end of the tunnel, not just for this deployment but for all deployments. Bringing everyone out this summer is too fast to be supported by our Army's infrastructure. We would hemorrhage lives if we do so. But so would we if we stay the course. I am encouraged by politicians who call for a withdrawal by the conclusion of President Bush's term in office. That seems a realistic timetable for me. Mark Mackoviak--24 years old. US Army. Recently returned from Iraq. Stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina: I joined the Army on September 23, 2001. I had been out of school for a year when September 11 came around, and I was supportive of our action in Afghanistan. I wound up there a year later, and it was pretty eye-opening to see how people live. I was also in Iraq for about a year, deployed near the International Airport, west of Baghdad. I was never that supportive of the invasion. I thought the media coverage of it was horrendous, really disgusting. Just about everything I saw in Iraq reinforced my views that it was wrong. The point that really hit me was when the Asmara Mosque got blown up. I said, Wow, this is really a civil war. I really enjoy being in the Army, enjoy the experience. I just happen to not support this war. I'm very open about that. My buddies either disagree with me or just pay no attention. But I get absolutely no hostility. None. "Rebecca"--26 years old. 101st Airborne, US Army. Just returned from Iraq. Stationed at Fort Hood, Texas: I joined in 2004. I was trying to go into the human rights field, but it was very competitive. I was in need of health insurance, and the Army seemed feasible. Now it looks like I will be stop-lossed until 2010. I had strong feelings about the war, against it, but I'm the type of person that wants to fully understand both sides of the argument. My experience in Iraq confirmed my views, but it also gave me a more multifaceted view of things. I did see some of the good things being done, but it seemed like a Band-Aid on a gushing wound. Mostly I saw the frivolity of the missions, the lack of direction, the absurdity of the mission. You go out in your Humvee, you drive around, and you wait to be blown up and get killed by an IED. About 40 percent of my unit were stop-lossed. Their first mission was to take down Saddam and his regime, and they seemed to understand that and agree with the mission to take down a ruthless dictator. Now they can't seem to understand why they are there, caught in the cross hairs of a civil war. I think it is safe to say that the majority of soldiers are wondering what this grand scheme is that we keep hearing about from those above us but that is never translating down to the ground level. Some politicians are starting to see that not only a majority of Americans oppose to this war. Now they see this very powerful statement of soldiers who have already been on the front line and who are still in uniform and are also opposed. None of them have been where we have been, none of them have seen what we have seen. It's time they do. -------- ACTIVISTS Thousands protest against Putin and his policies By Andrew Osborn in Moscow 16 December 2006 UK Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2079352.ece Thousands of demonstrators are to defy an official ban and take to Moscow's streets today to protest against President Vladimir Putin and his policies. It will be the first organised public protest of its kind in the run-up to parliamentary elections next year and a presidential vote in 2008 that will see Mr Putin step down. The protest, called "The March of Those Who Don't Agree," is being organised by a coalition of anti-Kremlin forces that includes liberal free marketers, nationalists, and radical youth movements. Organisers include former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, and Eduard Limonov, a radical nationalist whose own National Bolshevik party is officially banned. Though the event's participants come from across the political spectrum, they are united by one thing: their opposition to Mr Putin and what they claim is his growing fondness for authoritarianism. The coalition of political forces behind the event is called "Another Russia, " a group that has styled itself as the main opposition movement to the government despite its own fractured nature and its outsider status in the tightly controlled mainstream political arena. "Another Russia's" leaders contend that the Kremlin is imposing draconian restrictions on political life. In particular they take exception to a new law that gives the authorities a free hand to deal with anyone deemed to be "extremist" as well as legislation that makes it hard for smaller non-Kremlin aligned parties to stand in elections. There are fears that today's rally could become violent since the Kremlin has strict rules for such demonstrations that it often enforces with brutal force. Almost 9,000 policemen and troops have been drafted into the centre of Moscow for the rally including the OMON or riot police. "Acting within the law (police) will decisively prevent and if necessary forcibly bring to an end any anti-social displays," it has been promised. The authorities have forbidden protestors from marching down Tverskaya Ulitsa, Moscow's main thoroughfare, and confined them to two static rallying points instead. But the event's organisers have said that their supporters will march between the two venues regardless and have conceded that things "could end badly." They have claimed that their supporters have been intimidated ahead of the rally and that activists coming into the Russian capital from the provinces have been warned to stay away. Earlier in the week Mr Kasparov's offices were raided by the FSB security service who confiscated material relating to today's protest. But the former chess champion says he is refusing to back down. "The Dissenters' March is the march of those who cannot and will not keep quiet any longer," he said in an appeal to Muscovites to attend. "The time has come to show will and responsibility." Though today's rally is undoubtedly symbolically significant, the number of protestors is likely to be small by Russian standards and not number more than 5,000. In contract the pro-Putin "Nashi" (One of Us) youth movement has promised to organise its own march tomorrow with 100,000 attendees. ---- Activists protest NYC police shooting of groom 12/16/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-16-nyc-protest_x.htm NEW YORK — Thousands of protesters counted in unison to 50 to mark the number of shots police fired in the wedding day death of a groom as they marched Saturday along Fifth Avenue on one of the busiest shopping days of the year. One of the survivors of the Nov. 25 shooting that killed Sean Bell led marchers from his wheelchair through Manhattan's famous shopping district. The Rev. Al Sharpton, among those who organized the march, pushed Trent Benefield's wheelchair for awhile, and held hands with Bell's fiancee, Nicole Paultre. Among the marchers were clergy, city leaders, politicians and entertainer Harry Belafonte. Other demonstrators waved signs and chanted as they marched. "Stop NYPD Racist Terror," read one sign. "Jail the Cops," read another. "It's important that the police understand that they're here to protect the people," said Larry Dais, who has a 21-year-old son. Organizers intended the march, dubbed "Shopping for Justice," to contrast the slaying of 23-year-old Bell with the holiday spending spree. The hour-long protest, which ended outside Macy's on 34th Street, was the latest in a series of demonstrations since the shooting. Five officers fired 50 shots at Bell's car, killing him and wounding Benefield, 23, and another companion outside a strip club. They had been at the club for Bell's bachelor party. The victims of the shooting were all black; the officers were white, Hispanic and black. Police have said that undercover officers were conducting a vice operation at the club before the shooting, and they believed the victims were going to retrieve a gun — although no weapons were found. Police have also said Bell's car struck an officer and crashed into an unmarked police van. Sharpton and others say police used excessive force, and while the shooting was not strictly a racial issue, "clearly this seems to only happen in communities of color."