British Prime Ministers - 1721-2010

BRITISH PRIME MINISTERS  1721 Sir Robert Walpole   (Whig) 1742 Spencer Compton, Earl of Wilmington   (Whig) 1743 Henry Pelham    (Whig) 1754 Thomas Pelham-Holles, Duke of Newcastle   (Whig) 1756 William Cavendish, Duke of Devonshire   (Whig) 1757 Thomas Pelham-Holles, Duke of Newcastle   (Whig) 1762 John Stuart, Earl of Bute   (Tory) 1763 George Grenville   (Whig) 1765 Charles Watson-Wentworth, Marquess of Rockingham   (Whig) 1766 William Pitt the Elder, Earl of Chatham   (Whig) 1767 Augustus Fitzroy, Duke of Grafton   (Whig) 1770 Frederick North, Lord North  (Tory) 1782 Charles Watson-Wentworth, Marquess of Rockingham   (Whig) 1782 William FitzMaurice, Earl of Shelburne   (Whig) 1783 William Bentinck, Duke of Portland    (Tory) 1783 William Pitt, the Younger  (Tory) 1801 Henry Addington  (Tory) 1804 William Pitt, the Younger  (Tory) 1806 William Grenville, Lord Grenville   (Whig) 1807 William Bentinck, Duke of Portland  (Tory) 1809 Spencer Perceval  (Tory) 1812 Robert Jenkinson, Earl of Liverpool  (Tory) 1827 Frederick Robinson, Viscount Goderich  (Tory) 1827 George Canning  (Tory) 1828 Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington  (Tory) 1830 Charles Grey, Earl Grey   (Whig) 1834 Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington  (Tory) 1834 Sir Robert Peel  (Tory) 1834 William Lamb, Viscount Melbourne  (Whig) 1835 William Lamb, Viscount Melbourne  (Whig) 1841 Sir Robert Peel  (Tory) 1846 Lord John Russell   (Whig) 1852 Edward Stanley, Earl of Derby (Conservative) 1852 George Hamilton-Gordon, Earl of Aberdeen (Conservative) 1855 Viscount Palmerston  (Liberal) 1858 Edward Stanley, Earl of Derby (Conservative) 1858 Viscount Palmerston  (Liberal) 1865 John Russell, Earl Russell   (Liberal) 1866 Edward Stanley, Earl of Derby (Conservative) 1868 Benjamin Disraeli (Conservative) 1868 William Ewart Gladstone  (Liberal) 1874 Benjamin Disraeli (Conservative) 1880 William Ewart Gladstone   (Liberal) 1885 Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative) 1886 Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative) 1886 William Ewart Gladstone  (Liberal) 1892 William Ewart Gladstone  (Liberal) 1894 Earl of Rosebery  (Liberal) 1895 Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative) 1902 Arthur Balfour (Conservative) 1905 Henry Campbell-Bannerman  (Liberal) 1908 Herbert H Asquith  (Liberal) (Coalition 1915) 1916 David Lloyd George  (Liberal) (Coalition) 1922 Andrew Bonar Law (Conservative) 1923 Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1924 James Ramsay MacDonald  (Labour) 1924 Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) 1929 James Ramsay MacDonald  (Labour) 1931 James Ramsay MacDonald   (Labour) (Nat Govt) 1935 Stanley Baldwin (Conservative) (Nat Govt) 1937 Neville Chamberlain (Conservative) (Nat Govt) 1940 Winston Churchill (Conservative) (Coalition) 1945 Clement Attlee  (Labour) 1951 Winston Churchill  (Conservative) 1955 Sir Anthony Eden (Conservative) 1957 Harold Macmillan  (Conservative) 1963 Sir Alec Douglas-Home  (Conservative) 1964 Harold Wilson   (Labour) 1970 Edward Heath (Conservative) 1974 Harold Wilson  (Labour) 1976 James Callaghan  (Labour) 1979 Margaret Thatcher (Conservative) 1990 John Major (Conservative) 1997 Tony Blair  (Labour) 2007 Gordon Brown  (Labour) 2010 David Cameron  (Conservative)  [Source - Politics Resources - here]

TWITTER - Who knew?

Haven't got the hang of this twitter stuff yet.

For some reason, my tweet froze and I couldn't shake it.

Tried exiting and calling up a new page.  But no go.

Rebooted the computer.

Still no go.

Who knew twitter could disappear?

Then I started with the clearing of browser history and clearing of Google history.

Still no joy.

Searching 'how-to' info, I stumble on this:

Twitter account suspension stuff (here) and I'm thinking NOOOOOO, I've been suspended or something.

WTF?  What did I do?

Well, for starters, who knew that you can't respond to tweets out there?

Hey, if there's a 'reply' button, it's fair to assume one can reply to tweets that are floating about in cyberspace.

Nope. 

Mental note:  do not reply to tweets unless hooked up.  LOL.

Anyway, that wasn't the problem.  But it's good to know. 

Up and running now, so I've no idea what happened.

Really creepy tho.

Maybe twitter were out to lunch?

Don't know.

WIKILEAKS - RUSSIA COMPLAINT RE US AIR NEAR-MISSES, SWEDEN - 1977

WIKILEAKS CABLE - 1977 RE: SOVIET COMPLAINT OF SECOND AIR NEAR-MISS  LINK TO CABLE - HERE. Date: 1977 February 18, 00:00 (Friday) [REGARDING] REPLY TO SWEDISH GOVERNMENT ON INCIDENTS INVOLVING Date:1977 February 18, 00:00 (Friday) Canonical ID:1977STATE038249_c Original Classification:SECRET Current Classification:UNCLASSIFIED Handling Restrictions:EXDIS - Exclusive Distribution Only Character Count:3292 Executive Order:GS Locator:TEXT ON MICROFILM,TEXT ONLINE TAGS:MOPS - Military and Defense Affairs--Military Operations | PINR - Political Affairs--Intelligence | SW - Sweden | US - United States Concepts:AIRSPACE VIOLATIONS | ALLEGATIONS | OBSERVATION AIRCRAFT Enclosure:-- N/A or Blank -- Type:TE Office Origin:ORIGIN SS - Executive Secretariat, Department of StateOffice  Action:-- N/A or Blank -- Archive Status:Electronic Telegrams From:Department of State Markings:-- Not Assigned -- To:USEUCOM VAIHIGEN GERMANY ... CONCERNING THE SOVIET COMPLAINT OF A SECOND NEAR MISS INCIDENT ON JANUARY 5 INVOLVING THE SAME RC-135 AIRCRAFT AND ANOTHER AEROFLOT AIRCRAFT.  THE SECOND CROSSING, AS INDICATED IN REF D, OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR AFTER THE FIRST, VERY NEAR IF NOT EXACTLY ON THE BOUNDARY OF SWEDISH-CONTROLLED AIR SPACE. THE RADAR SCOPE FILMS SEEN BY SWEDISH DEFENSE STAFF OFFICIALS AND THE EMBASSY'S AIR ATTACHE SHOW THE RC-135 AIRCRAFT IN THIS INSTANCE PASSING EXTREMELY CLOSELY BEHIND THE SOVIET AIRLINER. WHILE THESE FILMS ARE CERTAINLY SUBJECT TO VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT INDICATE VERTICAL SEPARATION, THERE IS NO DOUBT WITHIN THE SWEDISH DEFENSE STAFF THAT THE TWO AIRCRAFT PASSED VERY SUBSTANTIALLY CLOSER TO EACH OTHER THAN THE FIVE NAUTICAL MILE SEPARATION DESCRIBED BY THE RC-135 AIRCREW.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND BECAUSE SWEDISH DEFENSE OFFICIALS ARE PROBABLY WILLING TO TESTIFY OTHERWISE, THE EMBASSY BELIEVES IT THE BETTER COURSE NOT TO INDICATE THE FIVE NAUTICAL MILE SEPARATION TO SWEDISH AUTHORITIES AND WILL NOT UNLESS SO INSTRUCTED.  SOURCE - WIKILEAKS - HERE.

COMMENT


New to this, so it took me forever and much clicking backwards and forwards trying to understand the 'to' and 'from' aspects ... as well as a lot of reading and re-reading trying to understand overall, as I've never paid attention to this type of information before.

So this would appear to be the US Embassy (Sweden) cable to:  US EU COM (in GERMANY)

That would then be the UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND (IN GERMANY) - website -  http://www.eucom.mil/  -  I'm guessing.

Cable appears to be under the service of DAVID SHIVERICK SMITH, US Ambassador to Sweden at the time:

David Shiverick Smith ... was the United States ambassador to Sweden from 1976–1977 [to:  April 29, 1977]   [wikipedia]

According to Palm Beach News, Smith, who died in 2012:

[was] assistant secretary of the Air Force and the Eisenhower administration

His military career resumed in 1953 when, as assistant secretary of the Air Force, he was commissioned as a colonel in the Air Force Reserve, a position he held on inactive duty for 21 years before retirement in 1975.

He joined the diplomatic corps in 1976 when President Gerald Ford appointed him U.S. ambassador to Sweden.

After his service in Sweden, Ambassador Smith resumed his law practice ... in Washington until he retired in 1990.

The Cable

As I read the cable, the US EMBASSY (in SWEDEN):

• decided the best course was to by-pass full disclosure to 'the authorities' 

unless instructed otherwise by the US EUROPEAN COMMAND (in GERMANY).

BUT, it is unclear to me which way the Swedish Defence staff officials are swinging -- ie does "probably willing to testify otherwise" mean willing to back up the US denial account, or does it mean to willing to testify against the US denial of violation account?

This 'secrets' stuff is lost on me.  LOL.  Bit slow catching on.

Also unclear to me if the 'authorities' in question are the SWEDISH BOARD OF CIVIL AVIATION or some other authority.

Anyway, it looks like the US Embassy was going to withhold information (and, basically, withhold the truth) from the very authorities that Russia had complained to?

But the Swedish Defence staff officials knew what had occurred and could hardly 'unsee' it, so wouldn't Sweden itself then have been complicit in withholding information, if such course of action was adopted? 

What does that say about the case against Julian Assange?

................................................................

Separation (Aeronautics) - here. 
Boeing RC-135 - here. 

US TRYING TO PROVOKE INCIDENT & CONFLICT WITH RUSSIA

U.S. official: Spy plane flees Russian jet, radar; ends up over Sweden From Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent August 3, 2014 -- Updated 1456 GMT (2256 HKT) Washington (CNN) -- The Cold War aerial games of chicken portrayed in the movie "Top Gun" are happening in real life again nearly 30 years later. A U.S. Air Force spy plane evaded an encounter with the Russian military on July 18, just a day after Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was downed by a suspected surface-to-air missile that Ukraine and the West allege was fired by pro-Russia rebels in eastern Ukraine. The RC-135 Rivet Joint fled into nearby Swedish airspace without that country's permission, a U.S. military official told CNN. The airplane may have gone through other countries' airspace as well, though it's not clear if it had permission to do so. Russians push Cold War talk The U.S. plane had been flying in international airspace, conducting an electronic eavesdropping mission on the Russian military, when the Russians took the unusual action of beginning to track it with land-based radar. The Russians then sent at least one fighter jet into the sky to intercept the aircraft, the U.S. official said Saturday. The spy plane crew felt so concerned about the radar tracking that it wanted to get out of the area as quickly as possible, the official said. The quickest route away from the Russians took them into Swedish airspace. The U.S. official acknowledged that was done without Swedish military approval. [BULL.  I don't believe that for one minute.] As a result of this incident, the United States is discussing the matter with Sweden and letting officials know there may be further occurrences where American jets have to divert so quickly they may not be able to wait for permission.  [Sweden's another puppet; like they care.] "We acknowledge a U.S. aircraft veered into Swedish airspace and will take active steps to ensure we have properly communicated with Swedish authorities in advance to prevent similar issues before they arise," the U.S. State Department said. The incident was first reported by the Swedish news agency Svenska Dagbladet. Russian officials did not provide any immediate reaction about the encounter. This was at least the second potentially-dangerous encounter between a U.S. plane and Russia over the past few months. On April 23, a Russian Su-27 Flanker fighter jet buzzed within 100 feet of the nose of a U.S. Air Force RC-135U reconnaissance plane over the Sea of Okhotsk between Russia and Japan, a Defense Department official said. Russian fighter jet nearly collided with U.S. military plane in April Russian and U.S. aircraft often encounter each other, both in Northern Europe as well as the area between the Russian Far East and Alaska. But the official said the land radar activity by the Russians in this instance was unusual. The ongoing civil unrest in Ukraine and the downing of MH 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, which killed all 298 people aboard, have heightened tensions between Washington and Moscow. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was brought down by a suspected missile. Pro-Russia rebels have denied allegations from Ukraine and the West that they shot down the Malaysian airliner, or that Russia supplied equipment used to shoot it down. SOURCE - CNN - here. .

'Peace' loving US at it again.

US is trying to provoke an incident with the Russians.

UKRAINE - PRO-GOVERNMENT THUGS - BLESSINGS OF US & CORPORATE AMERICA

U K R A I N E PRO-GOVERNMENT RIGHT-WING THUGS BEATING and TORTURING LOCALS TITLE:  Ukraine battalion "Donbas" torturing locals in Lisichansk  Source - Kazzura - here.   ..................................................................................... Source indicates video screened on pro-government TV channel 'Hromadske'. The locals are beaten, tortured and obviously under duress to give false confessions. The yellow arm bands on the pro-Ukraine government thugs would also suggest they are supporters or representatives of Svoboda (neo-nazis). Hey, this must be the thugs' favourite MO: Wikipedia: On March 18, 2014 Svoboda party members published a video online of Svoboda MPs beating acting president of the Ukrainian state broadcaster, Oleksandr Panteleymonov, and trying to force him to sign a resignation letter because he decided to broadcast the Crimea ascension to the Russian Federation ceremony in the Kremlin. Panteleymonov's broadcast was characterized in-video as 'state treason' by Svoboda MP Miroshnychenko who serves as Deputy Head of the Parliament's Committee on Freedom of Speech and Information. [here] The neo-nazi thugs have an MP serving as Deputy Head of Ukraine government's committee on Freedom of Speech and Information, but the thugs beat the acting president of the Ukraine state broadcaster (tried to get him to sign a letter of resignation) etc, because free speech is 'state treason' under the Ukraine fascist US puppet government state. With the blessings of:  US and Corporate America!

GAZA Open Air Prison - Economic Abuse - WikiLeaks Cable

Cashless in Gaza CABLE Date: 2008 November 3, 12:02 (Monday) Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis. FULL @ SOURCE SOURCE - WIKILEAKS - HERE.

I've not read the entire thing.
A whole document there at WikiLeaks link if anyone's interested.

'Consistent with avoiding humanitarian crisis' is just keeping these people living at the lowest level without attracting international flack.

What kind of life is that?

It is an open-air prison and those people are intentionally kept down.

US - Syria - Caution from Russia

A Plea for Caution From Russia What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN Published: September 11, 2013 MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies. Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again. The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades. No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization. The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance. Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world. Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all. From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression. No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored. It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.” But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes. No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect. The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded. We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement. A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action. I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations. If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues. My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0 Discovered an old NYT article via twitter. I'm not up-to-date. Just started watching this stuff, so it's some good info for me. Not big on the religious references. I see the UN as just another way for the US to exert influence and dominate, because their various defence and trade allies will always vote with the US. US has always interfered with internal conflicts in other countries, so it should hardly be a surprise if they want to interfere in Syria. So Syria fighting is about multiple extremist religious factions having a go at the government in a quest for religious (?) supremacy and, pretty much, that's all it is? US has designated al-Nusra Front and al-Qaeda 'terrorist'. These religious groups (along with Arab mercenaries), aim to spread conflict to other regions, currently battle it out in Syria. Yet opposition groups in Syria have been supplied with foreign weapons. Who by?  I think the US were wanting to arm the opposition, but I'd need to look that up. Looks like these religious fighters also have an eye on Israel. So basically, if the US is going to make an 'exception' of itself and if the UN veto counts for nothing, the UN may meet the same fate as the League of Nations. Meanwhile, where there is a lack of confidence in the UN, arms proliferation takes place. So it looks like the US were planning on attacking Syria? Funny how they're now planning on attacking Russia.  .......................................................................... Well, there's already a precedent for ignoring the UN and for being the 'exception', so they may as well disband the UN because the UN is a farce. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was NATO's military operation against the ... Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. The operation was not authorised by the United Nations and was the first time that NATO used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council and against a sovereign nation that did not pose a threat to members of the alliance.   The strikes lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999. The official NATO operation code name was Operation Allied Force; the United States called it Operation Noble Anvil, while in Yugoslavia the operation was named "Merciful Angel"... [wikipedia] Dig those code names. Not only did Clinton and NATO disregard the UN, Clinton disregarded the US congress as well: Clinton needed a new mission for NATO. The Soviet Union had collapsed and if you recall, the NATO Treaty was a collective security agreement between member nations that if one NATO nation were attacked by the Soviet Union (CCCP), other NATO members would go to its defense.  In violation of International law, the NATO Treaty, the UN Charter and without the approval of Congress, Clinton and his administration, along with Serb-hating Madeline Albright, Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke and the rest of the Clinton gang, bombed tiny Yugoslavia that did not attack us or any NATO nation, was never a threat to us, nor did it have weapons of mass destruction. [here] The precedent is set: International law, NATO, the UN, the UN Charter and the US Congress are meaningless shams.