<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18904"></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Outlines the direction of imperialism,
militarism, and military spending at a time of deep budget cuts
and attacks on immigrants. </FONT><BR></DIV><SPAN
style="DISPLAY: none"> </SPAN> <!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStartT|**|-~-->
<DIV style="POSITION: relative" id=ygrp-mlmsg>
<DIV style="Z-INDEX: 1" id=ygrp-msg><!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEndT|**|-~-->
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<P><A
href="http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE05Ak02.html">http://atimes.<WBR>com/atimes/<WBR>Middle_East/<WBR>LE05Ak02.<WBR>html</A><FONT
color=maroon face="Times New Roman"><STRONG><BR><BR></STRONG></FONT><FONT
class=time><STRONG>May 5, 2010 </STRONG></FONT><BR><FONT color=maroon
face="Times New Roman"><STRONG><BR>OBAMA'S WAR MACHINE, Part
1</STRONG></FONT><BR><FONT size=3><STRONG>The Pentagon's game
plan</STRONG></FONT><BR>By Jack A Smith <BR><BR>There's more war in America's
future - a great deal more, judging by the Barack Obama administration's
reports, pronouncements and actions in recent months. <BR><BR>These documents
and deeds include the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Nuclear Posture
Review (NPR), the Ballistic Missile Defense Report, the nuclear security summit
in New York and the May 3-28 United Nations nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
review conference, as well as the continuing wars in the Middle East and Central
Asia, and the 2011 Pentagon war budget request. <BR><BR>The United States
government presides as a <A id=KonaLink0 class=kLink
href="http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE05Ak02.html#"
target=undefined><FONT
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
color=green><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
class=kLink>military</SPAN></FONT></A> colossus of unrivalled dimension, but the
QDR, which was published in February, suggests Washington views America as being
constantly under the threat of attack from a multitude of fearsome forces bent
on its destruction. As such, trillions more dollars must be invested in present
and future wars - ostensibly to make safe the besieged homeland. <BR><BR>The NPR
says the long-range US goal is a "nuclear-free" world, but despite token
reductions in its arsenal of such weapons, the Pentagon is strengthening its
nuclear force and bolstering it with a devastating "conventional deterrent"
intended to strike any target in the world within one hour. In addition this
document, published in April, retains "hair-trigger" nuclear launch readiness,
refuses to declare its nuclear force is for deterrence only (suggesting
offensive use) and for the first time authorizes a nuclear attack, if necessary,
on a non-nuclear state (Iran). <BR><BR>Meanwhile, Obama is vigorously expanding
the George W <A id=KonaLink1 class=kLink
href="http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE05Ak02.html#"
target=undefined><FONT
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
color=green><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
class=kLink>Bush </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
class=kLink>administration's</SPAN></FONT></A> wars, and enhancing and deploying
America's unparalleled military power. <BR><BR>The Obama administration's one
positive achievement in terms of militarism and war was the April 9 signing in
Prague of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia that reduces
deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 warheads each. It was a step
forward, but all agree it was extremely modest, and it does not even faintly
diminish the danger of nuclear war. <BR><BR>The QDR is a 128-page Defense
Department report mandated by congress to be compiled every four years to put
forward a 20-year projection of <A id=KonaLink2 class=kLink
href="http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE05Ak02.html#"
target=undefined><FONT
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
color=green><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
class=kLink>US </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
class=kLink>military</SPAN></FONT></A> planning. A 20-member civilian panel,
selected by the Pentagon and congress, analyzes the document and suggests
changes in order to provide an "independent" perspective. Eleven of the members,
including the panel’s co-chairmen - former defense secretary William Perry and
former national security adviser Stephen Hadley - are employed by the defense
industry. <BR><BR>Although the Pentagon is working on preparations for a
possible World War III and beyond, the new report is largely focused on the
relatively near future and only generalizes about the longer term. Of the QDR's
many priorities three stand out. <BR><BR>The first priority is to "prevail in
today's wars" in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and wherever else
Washington's post-9/11 military intrusions penetrate in coming years.
Introducing the report February 1, Bush-Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates
issued this significant statement: "Success in wars to come will depend on
success in these wars in progress." The "wars to come" were not identified.
Further, the QDR states that military victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is "only
the first step toward achieving our strategic objectives".<BR><BR>Second, while
in the past the US concentrated on the ability to fight two big wars
simultaneously, the QDR suggests that's not enough. Now, the Obama
administration posits the "need for a robust force capable of protecting US
interests against a multiplicity of threats, including two capable nation-state
aggressors."<BR><BR>Now it's two-plus wars - the plus being the obligation to
"conduct large-scale counter-insurgency, stability and counter-terrorism
operations in a wide range of environments", mainly in small, poor countries
like Afghanistan. Other "plus" targets include "non-state actors" such as
al-Qaeda, "failed states" such as Somali, and medium-size but well-defended
states that do not bend the knee to Uncle Sam, such as Iran or the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, and some day perhaps Venezuela. <BR><BR>Third,
it's fairly obvious from the QDR, though not acknowledged, that the Obama
government believes China and Russia are the two possible "nation-state
aggressors" against which Washington must prepare to "defend" itself. Neither
Beijing nor Moscow has taken any action to justify the Pentagon's assumption
that they will ever be suicidal enough to attack the far more powerful United
States.<BR>After all, the US, with 4.54% of the world's population, invests more
on war and war preparations than the rest of the world combined. Obama's 2010
Pentagon budget is US$680 billion, but the real total is double that when all
Washington's national security expenditures in other departmental budgets are
also included, such as the cost of nuclear weapons, the 16 intelligence
agencies, <A id=KonaLink2 class=kLink
href="http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE05Ak02.html#"
target=undefined><FONT
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
color=green><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
class=kLink>Homeland </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
class=kLink>Security</SPAN></FONT></A> and interest on war debts, among other
programs. <BR><BR>Annual war-related expenditures are well over $1 trillion. In
calling for a discretionary freeze on government programs in January's state of
the union address, Obama specifically exempted Pentagon/national security
expenditures from the freeze. Obama is a big war spender. His $708 billion
Pentagon allotment for fiscal 2011 (not counting a pending $33 billion Congress
will approve for the Afghan "surge") exceeds Bush's highest budget of $651
billion for fiscal 2009. <BR><BR>At present, US military power permeates the
entire world. As the QDR notes: "The United States is a global power with global
responsibilities. Including operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, approximately
400,000 US military personnel are forward-stationed or rotationally deployed
around the world." <BR><BR>The Pentagon presides over 1,000 overseas military
bases (including those in the war zones), great fleets in every ocean, a
globe-spanning <A id=KonaLink3 class=kLink
href="http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE05Ak02.html#"
target=undefined><FONT
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
color=green><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
class=kLink>air </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
class=kLink>force</SPAN></FONT></A>, military satellites in space and nuclear
missiles on hair trigger alert pre-targeted on "enemy" or potential "enemy"
cities and military facilities. A reading of the QDR shows none of this will
change except for upgrading, enlarging (the Pentagon just added six new bases in
Colombia) and adding new systems such as Prompt Global Strike, an important new
offensive weapon system, which we shall discuss below. <BR><BR>The phrase "full
spectrum military dominance" - an expression concocted by the neo-conservatives
in the 1990s that was adopted by the Bush administration to define its
aggressive military strategy - was cleverly not included in the 2010 QDR, but
retaining and augmenting dominance remains the Pentagon's prime preoccupation.
<BR><BR>The QDR is peppered with expressions such as "America’s interests and
role in the world require <A id=KonaLink4 class=kLink
href="http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE05Ak02.html#"
target=undefined><FONT
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
color=green><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
class=kLink>armed </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
class=kLink>forces</SPAN></FONT></A> with unmatched capabilities" and calls for
"the continued dominance of America’s Armed Forces in large-scale force-on-force
warfare". Gates went further in his February 1 press conference: "The United
States needs a broad portfolio of military capabilities, with maximum
versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflicts." Obama bragged
recently that he commanded "the finest military in the history of the world".
<BR><BR>Evidently, the Pentagon is planning to engage in numerous future wars
interrupted by brief periods of peace while preparing for the next war. Given
that the only entity expressing an interest in attacking the United States is
al-Qaeda - a non-government paramilitary organization of extreme religious
fanatics with about a thousand reliable active members around the world - it is
obvious that America's unprecedented military might is actually intended for
another purpose. <BR><BR>In our view that "other purpose" is geopolitical - to
strengthen even further the Pentagon's military machine to assure that the
United States retains its position as the dominant global hegemon at a time of
acute indebtedness, the severe erosion of its manufacturing base, near gridlock
in domestic politics, and the swift rise to global prominence of several other
nations and blocs. <BR><BR>The QDR touches on this with admirable delicacy: "The
distribution of global political, economic and military power is shifting and
becoming more diffuse. The rise of China, the world’s most populous country, and
India, the world’s largest democracy, will continue to reshape the international
system. While the United States will remain the most powerful actor, it must
increasingly cooperate with key allies and partners to build and sustain peace
and security. Whether and how rising powers fully integrate into the global
system will be among this century’s defining questions, and are thus central to
America’s interests." <BR><BR>At the moment, the QDR indicates Washington is
worried about foreign "anti-access" strategies that limit its "power projection
capabilities" in various parts of the world. What this means is that certain
countries such as China and Russia are developing sophisticated new weapons that
match those of the US, thus "impeding" the deployment of American forces to
wherever the Pentagon desires. For instance:
<BLOCKQUOTE>China is developing and fielding large numbers of advanced
medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles, new attack submarines equipped
with advanced weapons, increasingly capable long-range air defense systems,
electronic warfare and computer network attack capabilities, advanced fighter
<A id=KonaLink5 class=kLink
href="http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE05Ak02.html#"
target=undefined><FONT
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
color=green><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
class=kLink>aircraft</SPAN></FONT></A> and counter-space systems. China has
shared only limited information about the pace, scope and ultimate aims of its
military modernization programs, raising a number of legitimate questions
regarding its long-term intentions. </BLOCKQUOTE>To counter this trend in China
and elsewhere, the Pentagon is planning, at a huge and unannounced cost, the
following enhancements: "Expand future long-range strike capabilities; Exploit
advantages in subsurface operations; Increase the resiliency of US forward
posture and base infrastructure; Assure access to space and the use of space
assets; Enhance the robustness of key ISR (Intelligence, <A id=KonaLink6
class=kLink href="http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE05Ak02.html#"
target=undefined><FONT
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
color=green><SPAN
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: green 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; FONT-FAMILY: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 400"
class=kLink>Surveillance</SPAN></FONT><SPAN id=preLoadWrap6 class=preLoadWrap>
<DIV id=preLoadLayer6><IMG style="HEIGHT: 22px" class=preloadImg
src="http://kona.kontera.com/javascript/lib/imgs/grey_loader.gif"></DIV></SPAN></A>,
and Reconnaissance) capabilities; Defeat enemy sensors and engagement systems;
and Enhance the presence and responsiveness of US forces abroad." <BR><BR>In
addition, the US not only targets China with nuclear missiles and bombs, it is
surrounding the country (and Russia as well, of course) with anti-ballistic
missiles. The purpose is plain: In case the US finds it "necessary" to launch
ballistic missiles toward China, the ABMs will be able to destroy its limited
retaliatory capacity. <BR><BR>According to an article in the February 22 issue
of China Daily, the country's English-language newspaper: "Washington appears
determined to surround China with US-built anti-missile systems, military
scholars have observed ... Air force colonel Dai Xu, a renowned military
strategist, wrote in an article released this month that 'China is in a
crescent-shaped ring of encirclement. The ring begins in Japan, stretches
through nations in the South China Sea to India, and ends in Afghanistan'."
<BR><BR>Compared to the Bush administration's 2006 QDR, there has been a
conscious effort to tone down the anti-China rhetoric in the current document.
But it is entirely clear that China is number one in the QDR's references to
"potentially hostile nation states". <BR><BR>According to the February 18
Defense News, a publication that serves the military-industrial complex,
"Analysts say the QDR attempts to address the threat posed by China without
further enraging Beijing. 'If you look at the list of further enhancements to US
forces and capabilities ... those are primarily capabilities needed for
defeating China, not Iran, North Korea or Hezbollah,' said Roger Cliff, a China
military specialist at Rand. 'So even though not a lot of time is spent naming
China ... analysis of the China threat is nonetheless driving a lot of the
modernization programs described in the QDR'." <BR><BR>Incidentally, according
to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, this year's Chinese
defense budget, for a country four times larger than the United States, is $78
billion, compared to the $664 billion for the Pentagon (without all the national
security extras harbored in other department budgets). China possesses 100-200
nuclear warheads compared to America's 9,326 (when both deployed and stored
weapons are included). China is contemplating the construction of an aircraft
carrier; the US Navy floats 11 of them. China has no military bases abroad.
<BR><BR>In our view, China appears to be constructing weapons for defense, not
offense against the US - and its foreign policy is based on refusing to be
pushed around by Washington while doing everything possible to avoid a serious
confrontation. <BR><BR>Russia as well is treated better in the new QDR than in
2006, but it is included with China in most cases. Despite Moscow's huge nuclear
deterrent and abundant oil and gas supplies, it's only "potential enemy" number
two in terms of the big powers. Washington feels more threatened by Beijing.
This is largely because of China's size, rapid development, fairly successful
state-guided capitalist economy directed by the Communist Party, and the fact
that it is on the road to becoming the world's economic leader, surpassing the
US in 20 to 40 years. <BR><BR>It seems fairly obvious, but hardly mentioned
publicly, that this is an extremely dangerous situation. China does not seek to
dominate the world, nor will it allow itself to be dominated. Beijing supports
the concept of a multipolar world order, with a number of countries and blocs
playing roles. At issue, perhaps, is who will be first among equals.
<BR><BR>Washington prefers the situation that has existed these 20 years after
the implosion of the Soviet Union and much of the socialist world left the
United States as the remaining military superpower and boss of the expanded
capitalist bloc. During this time Washington has functioned as the unipolar
world hegemon and doesn't want to relinquish the title. <BR><BR>This is all
changing now as other countries rise, led by China, and the US appears to be in
gradual decline. How the transition to multi-polarity is handled over the next
couple of decades may determine whether or not a disastrous war will be
avoided.<BR><BR></DIV><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| --></DIV><!-- ygrp-msg --><!-- Sponsor --><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 25px; WIDTH: 160px; BACKGROUND: #fff; FLOAT: right; CLEAR: none"
id=ygrp-sponsor><!-- Start Recommendations -->
<DIV id=ygrp-reco></DIV><!-- End Recommendations --></DIV><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<DIV style="COLOR: #fff; CLEAR: both; FONT-SIZE: 1px">.</DIV></DIV><IMG
src="http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=15714059/grpspId=1705060682/msgId=17605/stime=1273348995/nc1=6083913/nc2=3848641/nc3=4836039"
width=1 height=1> <BR>
<DIV style="HEIGHT: 0px; COLOR: #fff">__,_._,___</DIV><!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~--><!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStart|**|-~-->
<STYLE type=text/css>#ygrp-mkp {
BORDER-BOTTOM: #d8d8d8 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #d8d8d8 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 10px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BORDER-TOP: #d8d8d8 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #d8d8d8 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
#ygrp-mkp HR {
BORDER-BOTTOM: #d8d8d8 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #d8d8d8 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #d8d8d8 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #d8d8d8 1px solid
}
#ygrp-mkp #hd {
LINE-HEIGHT: 122%; MARGIN: 10px 0px; COLOR: #628c2a; FONT-SIZE: 85%; FONT-WEIGHT: 700
}
#ygrp-mkp #ads {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px
}
#ygrp-mkp .ad {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
#ygrp-mkp .ad A {
COLOR: #0000ff; TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc {
FONT-FAMILY: Arial
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd {
LINE-HEIGHT: 122%; MARGIN: 10px 0px; FONT-SIZE: 78%; FONT-WEIGHT: 700
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc .ad {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
A {
COLOR: #1e66ae
}
#actions {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 11px; PADDING-TOP: 10px
}
#activity {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #e0ecee; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FLOAT: left; FONT-SIZE: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 10px
}
#activity SPAN {
FONT-WEIGHT: 700
}
#activity SPAN:first-child {
TEXT-TRANSFORM: uppercase
}
#activity SPAN A {
COLOR: #5085b6; TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
#activity SPAN SPAN {
COLOR: #ff7900
}
#activity SPAN .underline {
TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
.attach {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 400px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; DISPLAY: table; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; CLEAR: both; FONT-SIZE: 12px; PADDING-TOP: 10px
}
.attach DIV A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
.attach IMG {
BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none
}
.attach LABEL {
DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5px
}
.attach LABEL A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
BLOCKQUOTE {
MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 4px
}
.bold {
FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: 700
}
.bold A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DD.last P A {
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-WEIGHT: 700
}
DD.last P SPAN {
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-WEIGHT: 700; MARGIN-RIGHT: 10px
}
DD.last P SPAN.yshortcuts {
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px
}
DIV.attach-table DIV DIV A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.attach-table {
WIDTH: 400px
}
DIV.file-title A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.file-title A:active {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.file-title A:hover {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.file-title A:visited {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.photo-title A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.photo-title A:active {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.photo-title A:hover {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.photo-title A:visited {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV#ygrp-mlmsg #ygrp-msg P A SPAN.yshortcuts {
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal
}
.green {
COLOR: #628c2a
}
.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0px
}
o {
FONT-SIZE: 0px
}
#photos DIV {
WIDTH: 72px; FLOAT: left
}
#photos DIV DIV {
BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; WIDTH: 62px; HEIGHT: 62px; OVERFLOW: hidden; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid
}
#photos DIV LABEL {
TEXT-ALIGN: center; WIDTH: 64px; WHITE-SPACE: nowrap; COLOR: #666666; FONT-SIZE: 10px; OVERFLOW: hidden
}
#reco-category {
FONT-SIZE: 77%
}
#reco-desc {
FONT-SIZE: 77%
}
.replbq {
MARGIN: 4px
}
#ygrp-actbar DIV A:first-child {
PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 2px
}
#ygrp-mlmsg {
FONT-FAMILY: Arial, helvetica,clean, sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: small
}
#ygrp-mlmsg TABLE {
}
#ygrp-mlmsg SELECT {
FONT: 99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif
}
INPUT {
FONT: 99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif
}
TEXTAREA {
FONT: 99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif
}
#ygrp-mlmsg PRE {
FONT: 100% monospace
}
CODE {
FONT: 100% monospace
}
#ygrp-mlmsg * {
LINE-HEIGHT: 1.22em
}
#ygrp-mlmsg #logo {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px
}
#ygrp-mlmsg A {
COLOR: #1e66ae
}
#ygrp-msg P A {
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
#ygrp-msg P#attach-count SPAN {
COLOR: #1e66ae; FONT-WEIGHT: 700
}
#ygrp-reco #reco-head {
COLOR: #ff7900; FONT-WEIGHT: 700
}
#ygrp-reco {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 20px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov LI A {
FONT-SIZE: 130%; TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov LI {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 6px; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: square; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 77%; PADDING-TOP: 6px
}
#ygrp-sponsor #ov UL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
#ygrp-text {
FONT-FAMILY: Georgia
}
#ygrp-text P {
MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em
}
#ygrp-text TT {
FONT-SIZE: 120%
}
#ygrp-vital UL LI:unknown {
BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none !important
}
</STYLE>
<!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~--><!-- end group email --></BODY></HTML>