Iceland's volcanic ash cloud could reach Scotland on Tuesday and Thursday in France, Spain
Airlines have been warned that the cloud of ash from the volcano Grímsvötn in Iceland, which began to erupt on Saturday could arrive in Scotland until Tuesday, then in France and Spain until Thursday or Friday, if the eruption continues to maintain its intensity, Reuters.
Iceland's air space is closed temporarily, after the cloud of ash rose up to 20 km above the country.
The warning is based on a five-day forecast, but is treated with caution because of uncertainties about how the eruption will evolve.
Authorities say that the risk of European and transatlantic air traffic was affected in the next 24 hours is small, considering the winds northwards resulting ash. But there is the possibility that winds from the northwest to take the ashes to Europe.
Airlines have received these warnings during a tele-conference with experts in meteorology and officials responsible for its European air space.
A spokesman for Eurocontrol, but declined comment, citing the most recent announcement, informing that there will be no major problems in the next 24 hours.
The most active volcano in Iceland, Grímsvötn, began erupting again on Saturday.
In 2010, ash from Icelandic volcano caused chaos Eyjafjallajokull scale throughout Europe, setting the worst block of airspace in the Second World War.
Iceland's air space is closed temporarily, after the cloud of ash rose up to 20 km above the country.
The warning is based on a five-day forecast, but is treated with caution because of uncertainties about how the eruption will evolve.
Authorities say that the risk of European and transatlantic air traffic was affected in the next 24 hours is small, considering the winds northwards resulting ash. But there is the possibility that winds from the northwest to take the ashes to Europe.
Airlines have received these warnings during a tele-conference with experts in meteorology and officials responsible for its European air space.
A spokesman for Eurocontrol, but declined comment, citing the most recent announcement, informing that there will be no major problems in the next 24 hours.
The most active volcano in Iceland, Grímsvötn, began erupting again on Saturday.
In 2010, ash from Icelandic volcano caused chaos Eyjafjallajokull scale throughout Europe, setting the worst block of airspace in the Second World War.
The American journalist Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. explains why U.S. involvement in wars: We are likely to press the trigger faster than the Europeans
On 19 March 2011, just hours after it launched the first apparatus to fight the French air strikes against targets on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, planes and ships joined the U.S. and other international offensive to stem attacks by pro-government forces against civilians in Tripoli. Raids by F-15 and F-16, and Tomahawk missile attacks against hundreds of targets in Libya marked the American involvement in another military operation, this time in North Africa. Many people questioned the U.S. military intervention in Libya and asked, once again, the role of "world policeman" that Uncle Sam plays in the world. From here to the question "Is America obsessed with the war?" n has been only a step.
After more than two months luii early May, U.S. President Barack Obama in the White House announced that U.S. commando forces had managed to eliminate the terrorist network Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. The world's most wanted terrorist was killed by troops of the elite Navy SEAL after a secret operation carried thousands of kilometers of U.S. territory, in Abbottabad (Pakistan), which has provoked angry protests in the streets of Pakistani cities, where people burned U.S. flags and shouted that "the country has lost its sovereignty."
The American War
The United States formally declared war five times in other countries throughout history:
* Great Britain (1812)
* Mexico (1846)
* Spain (1898)
* Germany and Austria-Hungary (1917)
* During the Second World War, America declared war on several countries at different dates: Japan (December 8, 1941), Germany and Italy (11 December 1941), and the last date on June 5, 1942 against Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary.
In four of these cases, hostilities had already started when Congress declared war.
Infantry Marines in Haiti
Infantry Marines in humanitarian mission in Haiti
Photo: Agerpres
Currently, the United States are engaged in combat operations in several countries around the world (Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan), made commando missions in others (Pakistan, Yemen), providing security assistance, humanitarian assistance and many others.
Paradoxically, despite numerous military operations they take part in this moment the U.S. is not officially "at war" with any country in the world.
"War" in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) is actually a military intervention authorized by Congress. Also, the conflict in Iraq is a military intervention authorized by resolutions of the UN Security Council and funded by Congress in Washington.
Even so-called "War on Terrorism" is a series of military operations in different regions of the globe.
The American journalist Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.: We are likely to press the trigger faster than the Europeans
"Americans are not, in particular, a peace-loving people. But we are not crazy with cowboy hats, which foment wars. We are likely, from a cultural standpoint, press the trigger faster than the Europeans, but we and logical reasons to go to war so often as we do - they add to the issues related to personal interest rather than humanitarianism.
From a cultural standpoint, we are definitely much less than most European nations pacifists. This is because Europe has gone through two world wars in 30 years, which makes any company to be nervous when it comes to using force. Of course, the United States both took part in the conflagration, but we actually received them from the economic point of view, while our military losses were relatively small and there were no civilian casualties.
First and the Second World War took place on our territory and our cities have been bombed, occupied and were never have seen them struggle to rubble.
Unfortunately, the only thing that seems to convince a company can not wear in future wars is disastrous conflicts of the past experience, people who continue to win wars tend not to become pacifists!
Even the United States became far less adventurous military after the disaster that we suffered in Vietnam - but the losses that we recorded there were significantly fewer than in most European countries in the two world wars. Therefore, our return to pacifism was, accordingly, less comprehensive and relatively brief.
But I would argue that this is a good thing.
The world is a pretty bad place for someone to be forced to fight when the opportunity arises, if the rest of us want everyone to always enjoy peace. The threat to the capitalist democracies is much lower than it was in the Cold War era, but there are still threats and not all can be traded (or bribed) to remain passive.
In the 1990s, for example, ethnic wars in Yugoslavia and Italy have threatened to destabilize the Balkans, even if only by the number of refugees. Serbs were the instigators of the worst violence and military force was needed to stop them.
In Bosnia, the force took the form of an attack by land of Croats and corroborated by the NATO bombing, all supported by the United States, in Kosovo, the force was represented by 78 continuous days of air strikes, in essence fought a war of siege, air in both countries was needed peacekeeping troops - large and well-armed forces, including heavy tanks, to ensure that fighting will not reignited.
Today, civil war in Libya threatens regional stability around the Mediterranean, not only in countries neighboring Egypt and Tunisia, but also in Italy, where refugees are already arriving in large numbers. So, the U.S., France and Great Britain using force against the person who causes the most serious violent, namely Muammar Gaddafi's regime - even if on a smaller scale, which they believe can not only win but also have a impact.
We intervened in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government that allowed the attacks on our territory and we are still there to prevent him from returning to power (whether this refers to the entire country or only a few provinces in the south or east, this is unacceptable to us.) Even our intervention in Iraq began with the sincere belief, but wrong, that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat.
United States use force where we believe - rightly or wrongly - that our national interests are at stake, either directly or indirectly because of the threats to our allies and trading partners.
In contrast, if the U.S. does not see a threat, direct or indirect, of their national interests, in general we do not resort to use of force. Genocide in Rwanda was not only a horrible crime, but has also spread and cause instability which eventually threw the whole central African war, a war that still takes place largely in Congo.
But simply U.S. interests which are not worth fighting in Central Africa. Congo is not an ally or a major trading partner, Rwanda, much less as there is not any nation in Central Africa or near them. (Our vital interests in Sub-Saharan Africa is only in South Africa, in Nigeria and oil and, to a certain extent, in Somalia, with its strategic position on major sea routes, leading to the Suez Canal).
Riots moral or humanitarian compassion will not be alone sufficient to bring the United States to act when we see to our national interests are at stake. But because we are the largest economy in the world (and, moreover, an economy based on free trade), we have many interests at stake in many places around the world than any other country. And this gives us more reasons to fight.
It is important to underline that the EU has a higher GDP than the U.S., if taken collectively, have a higher trade volume and therefore
Has higher global interest. But also at the collective level, Europe is more than U.S. opposition to military action - though not uniformly reluctant or entirely, as Britain and France showed in Libya. From the political point of view, Europe is not united enough to act decisively - again, as shown in the case of Libya. And since the U.S. and Europe are interdependent economically, a direct threat to European interests is an indirect threat to U.S. interests. If Europe can not defend your own interests, America's national interests require us to act in the end, as we did in the Balkans, but if Europe acts, the United States are generally willing to let others take the lead as we do now in Libya.
Now, America's strategic position and its cultural predispositions are fundamental reasons for which we go to war more often than Europeans. But there are many political and institutional factors that make us more or less willing to use force at any time. Relative weakness of our leadership for economic aid and international diplomacy are, for example, our strong military force to be the most obvious use of policy makers, even when it is not the best instrument (about the expression "when everything you own is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.)
Negative reaction against military action, which came after the Vietnam War, led us to dismiss the army for a decade and still affects our policy. Deep fear of terrorist attack after September 11, 2001 attacks, led us to overstate threats across the world and unleashed us accordingly. Our disasters in Iraq have made us once again relatively reluctant to use force. But I say that only "relatively" reluctant, as strategic and cultural foundations remain.
U.S. is not an empire, but are imperial interests and influence in itself. Before us, Rome and Britain were almost constantly at war, So, unfortunately, so are we. "
After more than two months luii early May, U.S. President Barack Obama in the White House announced that U.S. commando forces had managed to eliminate the terrorist network Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden. The world's most wanted terrorist was killed by troops of the elite Navy SEAL after a secret operation carried thousands of kilometers of U.S. territory, in Abbottabad (Pakistan), which has provoked angry protests in the streets of Pakistani cities, where people burned U.S. flags and shouted that "the country has lost its sovereignty."
The American War
The United States formally declared war five times in other countries throughout history:
* Great Britain (1812)
* Mexico (1846)
* Spain (1898)
* Germany and Austria-Hungary (1917)
* During the Second World War, America declared war on several countries at different dates: Japan (December 8, 1941), Germany and Italy (11 December 1941), and the last date on June 5, 1942 against Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary.
In four of these cases, hostilities had already started when Congress declared war.
Infantry Marines in Haiti
Infantry Marines in humanitarian mission in Haiti
Photo: Agerpres
Currently, the United States are engaged in combat operations in several countries around the world (Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan), made commando missions in others (Pakistan, Yemen), providing security assistance, humanitarian assistance and many others.
Paradoxically, despite numerous military operations they take part in this moment the U.S. is not officially "at war" with any country in the world.
"War" in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) is actually a military intervention authorized by Congress. Also, the conflict in Iraq is a military intervention authorized by resolutions of the UN Security Council and funded by Congress in Washington.
Even so-called "War on Terrorism" is a series of military operations in different regions of the globe.
The American journalist Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.: We are likely to press the trigger faster than the Europeans
"Americans are not, in particular, a peace-loving people. But we are not crazy with cowboy hats, which foment wars. We are likely, from a cultural standpoint, press the trigger faster than the Europeans, but we and logical reasons to go to war so often as we do - they add to the issues related to personal interest rather than humanitarianism.
From a cultural standpoint, we are definitely much less than most European nations pacifists. This is because Europe has gone through two world wars in 30 years, which makes any company to be nervous when it comes to using force. Of course, the United States both took part in the conflagration, but we actually received them from the economic point of view, while our military losses were relatively small and there were no civilian casualties.
First and the Second World War took place on our territory and our cities have been bombed, occupied and were never have seen them struggle to rubble.
Unfortunately, the only thing that seems to convince a company can not wear in future wars is disastrous conflicts of the past experience, people who continue to win wars tend not to become pacifists!
Even the United States became far less adventurous military after the disaster that we suffered in Vietnam - but the losses that we recorded there were significantly fewer than in most European countries in the two world wars. Therefore, our return to pacifism was, accordingly, less comprehensive and relatively brief.
But I would argue that this is a good thing.
The world is a pretty bad place for someone to be forced to fight when the opportunity arises, if the rest of us want everyone to always enjoy peace. The threat to the capitalist democracies is much lower than it was in the Cold War era, but there are still threats and not all can be traded (or bribed) to remain passive.
In the 1990s, for example, ethnic wars in Yugoslavia and Italy have threatened to destabilize the Balkans, even if only by the number of refugees. Serbs were the instigators of the worst violence and military force was needed to stop them.
In Bosnia, the force took the form of an attack by land of Croats and corroborated by the NATO bombing, all supported by the United States, in Kosovo, the force was represented by 78 continuous days of air strikes, in essence fought a war of siege, air in both countries was needed peacekeeping troops - large and well-armed forces, including heavy tanks, to ensure that fighting will not reignited.
Today, civil war in Libya threatens regional stability around the Mediterranean, not only in countries neighboring Egypt and Tunisia, but also in Italy, where refugees are already arriving in large numbers. So, the U.S., France and Great Britain using force against the person who causes the most serious violent, namely Muammar Gaddafi's regime - even if on a smaller scale, which they believe can not only win but also have a impact.
We intervened in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government that allowed the attacks on our territory and we are still there to prevent him from returning to power (whether this refers to the entire country or only a few provinces in the south or east, this is unacceptable to us.) Even our intervention in Iraq began with the sincere belief, but wrong, that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat.
United States use force where we believe - rightly or wrongly - that our national interests are at stake, either directly or indirectly because of the threats to our allies and trading partners.
In contrast, if the U.S. does not see a threat, direct or indirect, of their national interests, in general we do not resort to use of force. Genocide in Rwanda was not only a horrible crime, but has also spread and cause instability which eventually threw the whole central African war, a war that still takes place largely in Congo.
But simply U.S. interests which are not worth fighting in Central Africa. Congo is not an ally or a major trading partner, Rwanda, much less as there is not any nation in Central Africa or near them. (Our vital interests in Sub-Saharan Africa is only in South Africa, in Nigeria and oil and, to a certain extent, in Somalia, with its strategic position on major sea routes, leading to the Suez Canal).
Riots moral or humanitarian compassion will not be alone sufficient to bring the United States to act when we see to our national interests are at stake. But because we are the largest economy in the world (and, moreover, an economy based on free trade), we have many interests at stake in many places around the world than any other country. And this gives us more reasons to fight.
It is important to underline that the EU has a higher GDP than the U.S., if taken collectively, have a higher trade volume and therefore
Has higher global interest. But also at the collective level, Europe is more than U.S. opposition to military action - though not uniformly reluctant or entirely, as Britain and France showed in Libya. From the political point of view, Europe is not united enough to act decisively - again, as shown in the case of Libya. And since the U.S. and Europe are interdependent economically, a direct threat to European interests is an indirect threat to U.S. interests. If Europe can not defend your own interests, America's national interests require us to act in the end, as we did in the Balkans, but if Europe acts, the United States are generally willing to let others take the lead as we do now in Libya.
Now, America's strategic position and its cultural predispositions are fundamental reasons for which we go to war more often than Europeans. But there are many political and institutional factors that make us more or less willing to use force at any time. Relative weakness of our leadership for economic aid and international diplomacy are, for example, our strong military force to be the most obvious use of policy makers, even when it is not the best instrument (about the expression "when everything you own is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.)
Negative reaction against military action, which came after the Vietnam War, led us to dismiss the army for a decade and still affects our policy. Deep fear of terrorist attack after September 11, 2001 attacks, led us to overstate threats across the world and unleashed us accordingly. Our disasters in Iraq have made us once again relatively reluctant to use force. But I say that only "relatively" reluctant, as strategic and cultural foundations remain.
U.S. is not an empire, but are imperial interests and influence in itself. Before us, Rome and Britain were almost constantly at war, So, unfortunately, so are we. "
Nice sites liking to us:
- Double dir - Pegasus directory - Sites directory - Zorro directory - Future directory
- Double dir - Pegasus directory - Sites directory - Zorro directory - Future directory
Israeli PM pledges to resume peace negotiations with Palestinians
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday took his commitment to work with President Barack Obama in a way to renew peace negotiations with the Palestinians on Tuesday.
Netanyahu made the declaration in a context where, two days ago, said he was disappointed by Obama's speech Thursday in which he declared that Israel's borders and the future Palestinian state should be based on those of 1967.
"Among other things, this means that Israel must withdraw behind the 1967 lines, which are necessarily and that would leave much of the Israeli population beyond those lines, " Netanyahu said then.
Obama reaffirmed Sunday in front of the main pro-Israeli lobbying group in the United States, the idea of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, but wanted to give assurances that the commitment to Israel's "iron. "
"Even if we can be at odds sometimes, as friends can be links between the U.S. and Israel are unalterable, and the U.S. commitment to Israel's security is unshakable, " Bush assured.
In response to this new declaration, Netanyahu gave a statement, saying: "I am a partner of Obama's desire to promote peace efforts and appreciate its past and present to achieve this objective. I am determined to work with President Obama find ways to renew peace negotiations. "
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday took his commitment to work with President Barack Obama in a way to renew peace negotiations with the Palestinians on Tuesday.
Netanyahu made the declaration in a context where, two days ago, said he was disappointed by Obama's speech Thursday in which he declared that Israel's borders and the future Palestinian state should be based on those of 1967.
"Among other things, this means that Israel must withdraw behind the 1967 lines, which are necessarily and that would leave much of the Israeli population beyond those lines, " Netanyahu said then.
Obama reaffirmed Sunday in front of the main pro-Israeli lobbying group in the United States, the idea of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines, but wanted to give assurances that the commitment to Israel's "iron. "
"Even if we can be at odds sometimes, as friends can be links between the U.S. and Israel are unalterable, and the U.S. commitment to Israel's security is unshakable, " Bush assured.
In response to this new declaration, Netanyahu gave a statement, saying: "I am a partner of Obama's desire to promote peace efforts and appreciate its past and present to achieve this objective. I am determined to work with President Obama find ways to renew peace negotiations. "
Health related resources:
- Sarcoidosis is a systemic illness that may affect any organ. Common symptoms are imprecise, akin to fatigue unchanged by sleep, lack of power, weight reduction, aches and pains, arthritis, dry eyes, swelling of the knees, blurry imaginative and prescient, shortness of breath, a dry hacking cough or skin lesions. Sarcoidosis and most cancers could mimic one another, making the distinction difficult. The cutaneous symptoms vary, and range from rashes and noduli (small bumps) to erythema nodosum or lupus pernio. It's typically asymptomatic.
- The prognosis or early detection of lymphedema is difficult. The first indicators may be subjective observations such as "my arm feels heavy" or "I've problem today getting rings on and off my fingers". These may be symptomatic of early stage of lymphoedema where accumulation of lymph is gentle and never detectable by any difference in arm volume or circumference (see severity above). As lymphedema develops additional, definitive diagnosis is often based mostly upon an objective measurement of difference between the affected or at-danger limb on the opposite unaffected limb, e.g. in quantity or circumference.
- Measles (typically often known as English measles) is unfold by respiration (contact with fluids from an infected particular person's nose and mouth, both immediately or via aerosol transmission), and is very contagious-ninety% of people with out immunity sharing residing space with an infected individual will catch it. The infection has a mean incubation period of 14 days (vary six to 19 days) and infectivity lasts from two to four days prior, till two to 5 days following the onset of the rash (i.e. four to 9 days infectivity in complete).
- Sarcoidosis is a systemic illness that may affect any organ. Common symptoms are imprecise, akin to fatigue unchanged by sleep, lack of power, weight reduction, aches and pains, arthritis, dry eyes, swelling of the knees, blurry imaginative and prescient, shortness of breath, a dry hacking cough or skin lesions. Sarcoidosis and most cancers could mimic one another, making the distinction difficult. The cutaneous symptoms vary, and range from rashes and noduli (small bumps) to erythema nodosum or lupus pernio. It's typically asymptomatic.
- The prognosis or early detection of lymphedema is difficult. The first indicators may be subjective observations such as "my arm feels heavy" or "I've problem today getting rings on and off my fingers". These may be symptomatic of early stage of lymphoedema where accumulation of lymph is gentle and never detectable by any difference in arm volume or circumference (see severity above). As lymphedema develops additional, definitive diagnosis is often based mostly upon an objective measurement of difference between the affected or at-danger limb on the opposite unaffected limb, e.g. in quantity or circumference.
- Measles (typically often known as English measles) is unfold by respiration (contact with fluids from an infected particular person's nose and mouth, both immediately or via aerosol transmission), and is very contagious-ninety% of people with out immunity sharing residing space with an infected individual will catch it. The infection has a mean incubation period of 14 days (vary six to 19 days) and infectivity lasts from two to four days prior, till two to 5 days following the onset of the rash (i.e. four to 9 days infectivity in complete).
