An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
Assad needs friends, where Iran and Russia are ready to help the Syrian regime. But there is the NATO component, where Russia is threatening more. Where is the White House? Where is the State Department? Where are the ambassadors or the National Security Council?
The Islamic State jihadist group has added to the pressure by attacking government-held areas in central Syria. Its most recent attack was on ancient Palmyra.
Noting that “the situation is trending less favorably for the regime”, a top U.S. military officer said on May 8 he would look to the negotiating table if he were in Assad’s shoes.
Yet the setbacks do not appear to have forced a change in strategy on the part of Assad or his most important allies, Iran and Russia.
TBILISI, Georgia (AP) — About 600 U.S. and Georgian troops are conducting joint exercises aimed at training the armed forces of the former Soviet republic for participation in the NATO Response Force.
Col. Michael Foster, commander of the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade, said the exercises are “an absolutely unique opportunity for us” and “the way we are going to be fighting in the future.”
Georgia has aspirations of joining NATO and contributed troops to the NATO-led military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. List of Russian military incursions.
The number of Russian military flights probing Nato airspace has increased. In this map, the Telegraph maps the latest provocative operations, click on a submarine or plane to find out more information
As tensions between Nato and Russia have worsened over the Ukraine crisis, Moscow has significantly increased the number of military flights probing Nato airspace – and submarine activity probing its waters.
The number of interceptions over the Baltic States trebled last year and Nato members including Britain have stepped up air policing support in the area.
Russia’s TU-95 Bear bombers – strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons – make probing flights towards UK airspace about once a month.
The Ministry of Defence says the Russian bombers have never violated Britain’s sovereign airspace, which extends 12 nautical miles from the coast, and publicly regards them as more of a routine nuisance than a threat.
But defence officials have expressed mounting concern over the nature of the flights. Michael Fallon, the then-defence secretary, said the appearance of Bear bombers over the Channel in February marked the first time they had been seen in that area “since the height of the Cold War.”
“We had to scramble jets very quickly to see them off,” he said.
When foreign media, one from Qatar and the other from the United Kingdom provide readouts of Obama’s Gulf State summit at Camp David explaining nicely that it failed, one must worry even more.
Obama’s White House protocol office made a huge gaffe at the front end of the summit by getting a name and history wrong. Then he returned each night to the White House, leaving his invited guests to their own devices. Not only did topics like Iran and Iran get some verbal gymnastics but the matter of Syria and Russia did too. The whole charade boiled down to let us just keep channels open.
For Barack Obama, a sitting president to be so concerned, that it keeps him up at night about those dying and suffering, when he touts his special energies to human rights, his real indifference is on both sleeves for all to see that are watching.
The White House, his national security council, this connections to the United Nations and his jet-setter, John Kerry have no mission statement, no objective, no strategy and no final goal except to pass the burning of the globe on to the next administration. The death toll rises, he is cool with that, and that will frame his 8 year White House legacy.
What is going on is the classic diplomatic exercise of keeping channels of communication open in a confused situation in the hope that, as and when it changes, there will be some expertise and engagement available if new opportunities arise. De Mistura’s tactics also represent a recognition that, if there were ever a time when the Syrian war could be tackled on its own, that time has passed. It was always part of the larger regional contest between Iran and the Sunni states led by Saudi Arabia, a contest which in turn was deeply influenced by the difficult relationship between the United States and Iran, by the rise of jihadism, and by the standoff between the west and Russia.
Now all these dimensions are changing. Secretary of state John Kerry’s consultations with Vladimir Putin last week suggest a softening of US and Russian differences over Syria. Meanwhile, at Camp David, President Obama tried to allay the fears of Gulf states that Iran will exploit a nuclear agreement to become the region’s strongest power. It is indeed an open question whether Iran will become a satisfied power, interested in extricating itself from Syria and resting content with its enhanced influence in Iraq, or not. The US will both cooperate with Iran and oppose it, Obama has implied – cooperate in Iraq and parts of Syria, but oppose in other parts and in Yemen. It is a formula that must be very perplexing even to its authors. The new Saudi king, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, meanwhile, has thrown down a gauntlet in Yemen, and is propping up the Sisi regime in Egypt financially while Egypt is choosing sides in Libya. The verdict on this new Saudi forward policy has yet to be reached.
In contrast, the just-concluded summit promises little more than running in place. For its part, Washington explained its intention to move forward with Iran on a nuclear deal while insisting that it did not portend a US pivot away from its traditional Arab friends. Arabs were and remain sceptical, and justifiably so.
Obama himself explained: “I want to be very clear. The purpose of security cooperation [with the GCC] is not to perpetuate any long-term confrontation with Iran or even to marginalise Iran.”
US initiatives
Saudi misgivings about the choices made by US presidents have a long pedigree. The kingdom has been on the losing end of US initiatives in the region for decades. Washington has proven more than willing to take advantage of Arab weakness – US Palestine policy holds pride of place in this regard.
Of equal if not greater strategic import, however, is the toxic legacy of the US’ destruction of Baghdad’s Sunni military and political leadership, offering Iran a strategic entree into Iraq it has not enjoyed for centuries.
”I do not believe it is in the United States’ interests, or the interest of the region, or the world’s interest, to [attack Iraq],” Crown Prince Abdullah told ABC News shortly before Vice President Dick Cheney’s arrival in March 2002. ”And I don’t believe it will achieve the desired result.”
Cheney dismissed Saudi concerns that war would destabilise the region. That is indeed what Bush wanted – a revolutionary break with the past out of which a new Middle East would be forged.
BEIRUT, LEBANON: Eyes watering, struggling to breathe, Abd al-Mouin, 22, dragged his nephews from a house reeking of noxious fumes, then briefly blacked out. Even fresh air, he recalled, was “burning my lungs.”
The chaos unfolded in the Syrian town of Sarmeen one night this spring, as walkie-talkies warned of helicopters flying from a nearby army base, a signal for residents to take cover. Soon, residents said, there were sounds of aircraft, a smell of bleach and gasping victims streaming to a clinic.
Two years after President Bashar Assad agreed to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile, there is mounting evidence that his government is flouting international law to drop jerry-built chlorine bombs on insurgent-held areas. Lately, the pace of the bombardments in contested areas like Idlib province has picked up, rescue workers say, as government forces have faced new threats from insurgents.
The Security Council did condemn the use of chlorine as a weapon in Syria, in February. But with Russia, the Syrian government’s most powerful ally, wielding a veto, there was no Council agreement to assign blame.
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which monitors agreements on toxic arms, found that chlorine had been used “systematically and repeatedly” in three Syrian villages in 2014, and mentioned witness accounts of helicopter-borne chlorine bombs in its report. But it, too, lacked authorization to say who used them.
Obama said he did not use military action on Syria with regard to his original red-line on chemical weapons is due to the fact that Assad gave up his weapons. Those stockpiles have been eliminated and now he is disputing whether chlorine is prohibited and if the international community says those must be eliminated then he will reach out to Russia to put a stop to it.
One western U.N. diplomat told Fox News the situation has become “unacceptable” in Syria.
“There is mounting evidence of repeated chlorine attacks,” the diplomat said.
Civilians, including children, allegedly have been injured and killed in the latest attacks. In a letter sent last week to the U.N. Security Council from the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces, the group cited reports of chlorine gas attacks in the Idlib and Hama areas and urged the creation of a no-fly zone to protect the Syrian people.
“In the past two weeks alone, witnesses and medics on the ground in Idlib and Hama governorates reported at least nine separate instances of toxic chemical attacks — several of them deadly,” the group wrote. “… in each instance, barrel bombs loaded with poisonous chemical substances were deployed from Syrian regime helicopters.”
The U.S. has submitted a preliminary draft Security Council resolution that aims to set up a mechanism for determining who is to blame and to hold them accountable.
A U.S. official told Fox News the Security Council is overdue in addressing “the need to determine who is responsible” for the attacks. “Doing so is critical to getting justice for the Syrian people,” he said.
God, rest those souls that perished and blessings to those who must deal with their lasting injuries. A Boston jury today delivered death by lethal injection to 3 of several counts and the killer will be in a super-max prison during the appeal process, which is automatic.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been sentenced to death for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing that killed three people and injured more than 200.
Tsarnaev was found guilty on all 30 charges in the bombing and its aftermath by the same jury in April. The jury had to unanimously agree to sentence him to the death. Tsarnaev is widely expected to appeal, but that process typically takes years. The federal government executes prisoners by lethal injection.
A federal judge will officially sentence Tsarnaev to the death penalty at an upcoming hearing, as he is largely bound by the jury’s finding.
Defense lawyers had argued Tsarnaev had been influenced by his brother, Tamerlan, who died as officers pursued the two brothers, and that his life should be spared. But federal prosecutors painted him as a cold-hearted killer who deserves the death penalty.
In the end, the defense’s bid to humanize Tsarnaev and pin the blame on his older brother Tamerlan failed. Jurors decided that life behind bars without chance of parole was too lenient for the Russian immigrant who became a citizen months before carrying out the worst U.S. terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001.
Tsarnaev stood as the verdict was being read, showing no emotion.
The verdict isn’t surprising since Tsarnaev failed to show any remorse for a heinous act, said Barry Slotnick, a criminal defense lawyer in New York who isn’t involved in the case.
“He did not issue any statements during trial that he was sorry it happened, or that he shouldn’t have done it — nothing,” Slotnick said.
The penalty was announced Friday in Boston federal court by a unanimous jury of seven women and five men after about 14 1/2 hours of deliberations. Tsarnaev, 21, was found guilty by the same panel in April after a trial in which his lawyers admitted to his role in the attack.
How can anyone argue with General Mattis, former Commander of CENTCOM when he tells the audience there is no strategy and the cost of blind leadership causes a full tilt of the balance across the globe.
Because the United States lacks a global strategy, “volatility is going to get to the point that chaos threatens,” a former Central Command (CENTCOM) commander told a Heritage Foundation audience Wednesday.
Speaking in Washington, D.C., retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis said, “the perception is we’re pulling back” on America’s commitment to its allies and partners, leaving them adrift in a changing world. “We have strategic atrophy.”
He said Russia’s military moves against its neighbors—taking Crimea and backing separatists in Ukraine is “much more severe, more serious” than Washington and the European Union are treating it.
The nationalist emotions that Russian President Vladimir Putin has stirred up will make it “very, very hard [for him or his successors] to pull back from some of the statements he has made” about the West. At the same time, Putin faces problems of his own with jihadists inside Russia’s borders that threaten domestic stability.
But Putin also demonstrated Russia’s nuclear capability with long-range bomber flights near NATO countries. His intent is “to break NATO apart.”
Mattis said China “is doing a pretty good job of finding friction points between our allies,” such as Korea and Japan.
While Putin creates instability along Russia’s border, China’s approach is a “tribute model,” Mattis said, executing a “veto authority in each of the countries around their periphery.”
In the Middle East, he described a Sunni and Shi’ia civil war where “terrorism is only part of the problem.” He said there is a more important question: “Is political Islam [in both sects] in our best interest?”
Mattis said it is important “to find the people who want to stand with you.” He cited the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, stepping forward to help fill the gaps in Afghanistan when the United Kingdom and France began removing forces there.
He said since World War II the United States helped create a world order—diplomatically [United Nations] , economically [World Bank and International Monetary Fund], culturally and militarily.
By renewing that combination of inspiration and intimidation, “I have no doubt we can turn this around.”
Outside the scope of Russia and militant Islam sweeping the globe, there is China. Many months ago, the White House announced an Asia Pivot. The pivot to Asia was obscured under the real guise of trade and not a security strategy even while China has continued to threaten U.S. allies over control of the South China Sea. China is not impressed and the disputed waters and islands in the South China Sea are still being challenged.
Meanwhile it is important to telegraph what China is doing while the National Security Council, the White House and the State Department look the other way.
Chinese hackers have obtained designs for more than two dozen U.S. weapon systems — including the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, the F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter, the Littoral Combat Ship and electromagnetic railguns. A partial list of stolen U.S. military technologies by China is found here.
Making matters worse, at the Pentagon is under sequestration which stifles innovation, repair, weapons systems, defensive systems and acquiring advanced technology keep a competitive edge of adversaries, the U.S. is lagging while China has advanced beyond the scope and imagination of the Department of Defense and contractors.
The West — particularly the U.S. — relies on ever expanding constellations of communications and surveillance satellites to maintain its information edge over potential rivals and China is seeking ways to erode that advantage in the event of a conflict, according to the Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2015 report to Congress.
“China continues to develop a variety of capabilities designed to limit or prevent the use of space- based assets by adversaries during a crisis or conflict, including the development of directed-energy weapons and satellite jammers,” read the report.
Dubbed counterspace, the efforts follow several demonstrations of China’s capabilities to interdict satellites with ground-based missiles in the last several years.
Perhaps the most well known is Jan. 11, 2007 test in which a modified Chinese ballistic missile successfully destroyed a defunct weather satellite in polar orbit — littering Earth’s orbit with debris and surprising the West.
Since then, the Pentagon report has cited several instances in which it appears the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has conducted similar — albeit non-destructive — tests.
A July 2014 missile test “did not result in the destruction of a satellite or space debris, read the report.
”However, due to the evidence suggesting that this was a follow-up to the 2007 destructive test, the United States expressed concern that China’s continued development of destructive space technologies represented a threat to all peaceful space-faring nations, and was inconsistent with China’s public statements about the use of space for peaceful purposes.”
Additionally, in 2013 a suspicious Chinese launch sent an object into an orbital neighborhood crowded with geosynchronous communications satellites.
“Analysis of the launch determined that the booster was not on the appropriate trajectory to place objects in orbit and that no new satellites were released,” read the report.
After a little more than nine hours, the mystery object landed, leaving the rest of the space faring world puzzled to what the object was.
“The United States and several public organizations expressed concern to Chinese representatives and asked for more information about the purpose and nature of the launch. China thus far has refrained from providing additional information,” read the report.
The report feared the test could “have been a test of technologies with a counterspace mission in geosynchronous orbit.”
The U.S. relies heavily on satellites for communications and some targeting of its weapons a fact that has not been lost on the PLA.
“PLA writings emphasize the necessity of ‘destroying, damaging, and interfering with the enemy’s reconnaissance … and communications satellites,’ suggesting that such systems, as well as navigation and early warning satellites, could be among the targets of attacks designed to ‘blind and deafen the enemy’,” read the report.
“PLA analysis of U.S. and coalition military operations also states that ‘destroying or capturing satellites and other sensors … will deprive an opponent of initiative on the battlefield and [make it difficult] for them to bring their precision guided weapons into full play’.”
The report to Congress comes as some in the Air Force have called for a more robust defense of U.S. space assets, according to a Monday analysis from Jane’s Defence Weekly.
“The USAF’s outgoing military acquisition chief recently acknowledged that the Pentagon is devising new concepts for protecting its space assets, hinting at the need for new types of deterrence. ‘We have to put some resources and some focus on protection capability,’ Lt. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski said in April,” read the Monday report.
