* U. S. Nationalism is the most dangerous of all nationalisms
* Chronology of 234 U.S. 'Humanitarian Interventions,' 1798-1993
* A Brief History of United States Interventions, 1945 to the Present
* IN ITALIANO: 20 maggio 1999, a "Moby Dick" Luttwak ammette...
---
U. S. Nationalism
by Ezekiel Gonzalez
[Patriot and Pro-Independence Activist in Puerto Rico]
U. S. Nationalism is the most dangerous of all nationalisms. It is a
nationalism based on artificial grounds, on the
idolatry of ideals and on the collective trauma brought on by the
barbarism of the civil war. In reality, the united States
is not "one nation" but a federation. The nationalist identity springs
from the identification with a society within its
ecological environment. This is why nations don't have great territorial
areas. As environments change from region to
region, regional identities also change.
The united States cover many different ecosystems, from Alaska to
Hawaii, from Puerto Rico to New England. In a
natural progression, the inhabitants of each of these regions will
develop their own national collective identity. It is an
historical fact that this is what happened when the southern states
developed a different national identity from the northern
states. Unfortunately, the secessionist desire and struggle of these
states was combined with the fight to preserve the
nefarious institution of slavery. A just cause - national independence -
was amalgamated with an unjust cause - the
preservation of slavery.
The civil war was extremely savage. Millions of people died; the
southern states were devastated. The psychological
trauma was terrible. Uncle Sam astutely had the blame for this tragedy
placed not on federal government imperialism, nor
on the slavist philosophy of the southerners, but on "secessionist
nationalism." In that way, this natural nationalism was
turned into "something evil" in itself, in a collective trauma of
historical proportions.
Taking advantage of the situation and to satisfy the need for a
collective national identity, the federal government
invented the great lie of U. S. Nationalism. Before the civil war, for
example, there were two federal flags: a military
one and a civil one. Moreover, the military federal flag only flew over
federal military installations, and the civil federal flag
flew only over federal civil facilities. Over state facilities, the only
flag that flew was the state flag, exclusively, the one with
which the inhabitants of each state identified politically and
emotionally. After the civil war, the federal civil flag was
forgotten and the federal military flag was imposed on every government
facility, whether military, civil, federal or state.
Natural nationality is not based on ideologies, but on the natural
love the individual has for his native soil and the society
established there. U. S. Nationality, however, is based on the adoration
of certain ideals, on the so-called "American
Dream," as if this were the exclusive property of the American union.
This is an idolatrous nationality, based on fear of the
natural nationality, one which has been sold to Americans as the "U. S.
Nationality." It is a great lie, based on a terrible
historical trauma.
Due to the fear that sustains it and the mistaken idea that the
united States is the "headquarters for liberty and justice
in the world," U. S. Nationality has become an irrational force that
cannot look at itself objectively, but fanatically claims
superiority over every other culture or nationality. It is deathly
afraid to look at itself. Suddenly to discover that the
aspirations which supposedly make up the very foundation of U. S.
Nationality are not really the exclusive property of the
American People, but rather that they're part of the cultural heritage
of the world, threatens the very essence of said
nationality. Justice, freedom and the pursuit of liberty are everyone's
property. Every nation of people, including for
example, the Vietnamese, who fought against the United States not so
long ago, have always held these values to be their
own.
If we put aside the pathological fear of natural nationality, if we
accept the fact that the great values of the so-called
American Dream are really the property of all the nations of the world,
then, what do we have left as a U. S. Nationality? If
anything, maybe we could refer to what is called the "pop culture," and
even that isn't an American cultural asset, but rather
is also something common to every industrialized nation, from Japan to
Germany, from Finland to Chile.
When we look at the really defining elements of nationality:
folklore, religion, history, economy, language, etc., we'll see
that each region, and frequently each state of the union, has its own
features which identify it from among the other regions
and/or states. The only thing many of these regions or states are
lacking to become nations, sociologically
speaking, is to break away from "the pathological fear of proclaiming
its own nationality," which originated in
the tragedy of the civil war, which was instigated by Uncle Sam.
The united States, then, due to the tragedy of the civil war, is
made up of a series of nations which due to their historical
trauma do not dare to proclaim their own nationalities, and they
continue to be subjected to the great lie of a "sole
national identity" proclaimed by the Central Government and undergirded
by the great interstate and international
economic interests.
This great lie of the "Sole National Identity" promotes an
artificial nationalism characterized by: (1) the idea that the
united States is the "most just and the most democratic and most perfect
country in the world,"(2) that the rest of the
world is going from bad to worse and (3) consequently the United States
is "justified" in imposing its culture, political
system and domination on the world. Obviously, this nationalism serves
the imperialist interests of the federal government
and it "authorizes" it to impose its dominion internally (over the
states of the union) as well as externally (over supposedly
independent and sovereign nation-states). Due to the pathological fear
of facing up to the tragedy of the civil war and the
errors committed in it, the U. S. Nationality refuses to engage in
self-evaluation and self-criticism. This characteristic
prevents it from overcoming its own defects.
---
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
(NOTE: The following represents the views of the
author and not necessarily the views of the Naval
Historical Center.)
Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798
- 1993
by Ellen C. Collier, Specialist in U.S. Foreign
Policy,
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service --
Library of Congress -- October 7, 1993
Summary
This report lists 234 instances in which the United
States has used its armed forces abroad in situations
of conflict or potential conflict or for other than
normal peacetime purposes. It brings up to date a 1989
list that was compiled in part from various older
lists and is intended primarily to provide a rough
sketch survey of past U.S. military ventures abroad. A
detailed description and analysis are not undertaken
here.
The instances differ greatly in number of forces,
purpose, extent of hostilities, and legal
authorization. Five of the instances are declared
wars: the War of 1812, the Mexican War of 1846, the
Spanish American War of 1898, World War I declared in
1917, and World War II declared in 1941.
Some of the instances were extended military
engagements that might be considered undeclared wars.
These include the Undeclared Naval War with France
from 1798 to 1800; the First Barbary War from 1801 to
1805; the Second Barbary War of 1815; the Korean War
of 1950-53; the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1973; and the
Persian Gulf War of 1991. In some cases, such as the
Persian Gulf War against Iraq, Congress authorized the
military action although it did not declare war.
The majority of the instances listed were brief Marine
or Navy actions prior to World War II to protect U.S.
citizens or promote U.S. interests. A number were
actions against pirates or bandits. Some were events,
such as the stationing of Marines at an Embassy or
legation, which later were considered normal peacetime
practice. Covert actions, disaster relief, and routine
alliance stationing and training exercises are not
included here, nor are the Civil and Revolutionary
Wars and the continual use of U.S. military units in
the exploration, settlement, and pacification of the
West.
(...)
---
> Subject: Fw: Blum - A brief history of US interventions
>
> Author William Blum offers us a very brief account of US
> interventions since they took over the role of world predators from
> Adolf's legions of Waffen SS and Gestapo terrorists. The history is
> well known to the managers of Western information control, but like
> the Goebbels gang, such realities must remain behind the iron
> curtain of omission - the propagandists' favorite weapon. RR --
>
> http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/blum.htm
> Content-Type: text/html;
> A Brief History of United States Interventions, 1945 to the Present
> By William Blum
>
> The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a
> devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to
> serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
>
> 1) making the world safe for American corporations;
>
> 2) enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home
> who have contributed generously to members of congress;
>
> 3) preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a
> successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
>
> 4) extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as
> possible, as befits a "great power."
>
> This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what
> cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the
> existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in
> fact never existed, evil or not.
>
> The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into
> more than 70 nations in this period. Among these were the following:
>
>
> China 1945-49: Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang
> Kai-shek against the communists, even though the latter had been a
> much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used
> defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The communists
> forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.
>
>
> Italy 1947-48: Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in
> the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power
> legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name
> of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few
> decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to
> intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of
> dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was
> haunting Europe.
>
>
> Greece 1947-49: Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the
> neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis
> courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal
> regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency,
> KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of
> secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.
>
>
> Philippines 1945-53: U.S. military fought against leftist forces
> (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese
> invaders. After the war, the U.S. continued its fight against the
> Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as
> president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.
>
>
> South Korea 1945-53: After World War II, the United States suppressed
> the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had
> collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt,
> reactionary, and brutal governments.
>
>
> Albania 1949-53: U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow
> the communist government and install a new one that would have been
> pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators
> with Italian fascists and Nazis.
>
>
> Germany 1950s: The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of
> sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against
> East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building
> of the Berlin Wall in 1961.
>
>
> Iran 1953: Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S.
> and British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by
> a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake
> of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil
> company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored
> the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of
> repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to
> foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent,
> other nations 20 percent.
>
>
> Guatemala 1953-1990s: A CIA-organized coup overthrew the
> democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz,
> initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass
> executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000
> victims -- indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th
> century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company,
> which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As
> justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had
> been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had
> so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain
> diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in
> addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social
> democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.
>
>
> Middle East 1956-58: The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United
> States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East
> country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any
> country controlled by international communism." The English
> translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or
> have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields
> except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by
> definition, "communist." In keeping with this policy, the United
> States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged
> several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements
> opposed to U.S.-sported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed
> 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate
> Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.
>
>
> Indonesia 1957-58: Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World
> leader the United States could not abide by. He took neutralism in
> the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China
> (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private
> holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. And he refused to
> crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the
> legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such
> policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas."
> Thus it was that the CIA began throwing money into the elections,
> plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phoney
> sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage
> a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.
>
>
> British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64: For 11 years, two of the oldest
> democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went
> to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from
> occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who
> tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times.
> Although a leftist -- more so than Sukarno or Arbenz -- his policies
> in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for
> he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that
> might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist
> model. Using a wide variety of tactics -- from general strikes and
> disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U.S. and
> Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a
> direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
>
>
> One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by
> the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became
> people.
>
>
> Vietnam, 1950-73: The slippery slope began with siding with the
> French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese,
> against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the
> Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was,
> after all, some kind of communist. He had written numerous letters to
> President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help
> in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a
> peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored.
> For he was some kind of communist. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new
> Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it
> with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator
> with ... " But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi
> Minh was some kind of communist.
>
>
> Twenty-three years, and more than a million dead, later, the United
> States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say
> that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core,
> and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington
> had in fact achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have
> been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was,
> after all, some kind of communist.
>
>
> Cambodia 1955-73: Prince Sihanouk, yet another leader who did not
> fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards
> his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous
> Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington
> finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was
> needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray.
> Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing
> had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia
> had been destroyed forever.
>
>
> Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery upon
> this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported
> Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat
> by the Vietnamese.
>
>
> The Congo/Zaire 1960-65: In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the
> Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But
> Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province,
> prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to
> the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a
> host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well
> as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices
> against the natives by the white owners of the country. The poor man
> was obviously a "communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
>
>
> Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September Lumumba was
> dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States,
> and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of
> Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and
> chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger
> to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30
> years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his
> CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the
> plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.
>
>
> Brazil 1961-64: President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual
> crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming
> relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against
> Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits
> multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of
> ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And
> Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing
> "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man
> was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who
> wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not
> enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup
> which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington
> line was ... yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown
> in Brazil ... but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
>
>
> For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship
> which Latin America has come to know and love were instituted:
> Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual
> extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended,
> criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were
> taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by
> police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned
> down, priests were brutalized ... disappearances, death squads, a
> remarkable degree and depravity of torture ... the government had a
> name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
>
>
> Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and
> became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin
> America.
>
>
> Dominican Republic, 1963-66: In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office
> as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican
> Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-
> communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only
> military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought
> "showcase of democracy" that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He
> was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took
> office.
>
>
> Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform; low-rent
> housing; modest nationalization of business; and foreign investment
> provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country; and
> other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World
> leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about the
> thing called civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such,
> were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
>
>
> A number of American officials and congressmen expressed their
> discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence
> from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always
> touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is
> made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
>
>
> In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United
> States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with
> a frown, did nothing.
>
>
> Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the
> exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to
> help crush it.
>
>
> Cuba 1959 to present: Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of
> 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of 10 March 1959
> included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another
> government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist
> attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargos,
> isolation, assassinations ... Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable
> Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in
> Latin America.
>
>
> The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind
> of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly
> under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its
> control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent, the
> internationalism were all there. But we'll never know. And that of
> course was the idea.
>
>
> Indonesia 1965: A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup
> attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with
> American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the
> ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup
> led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately -- of
> communists, communists sympathizers, suspected communists, suspected
> communist sympathizers, and none of the above -- was called by the
> New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern
> political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course
> of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
>
>
> It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of
> "communist" operatives, >from top echelons down to village cadres, as
> many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then
> hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then
> check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It
> really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of
> people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one
> U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have
> to strike hard at a decisive moment."
>
>
> Chile, 1964-73: Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for
> a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than
> a Marxist in power -- an elected Marxist in power, who honored the
> constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very
> foundation stones upon which the anti-communist tower was built: the
> doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can
> take power only through force and deception, that they can retain
> that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
>
>
> After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to
> do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of
> the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their
> attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three
> years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility.
> Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government,
> Allende dying in the process.
>
>
> Thus it was that they closed the country to the outside world for a
> week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the
> stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up
> along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers
> opened for business; the subversive books were thrown to the
> bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In
> Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state;
> and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of
> international finance opened up their check-books. In the end, more
> than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.
>
> Greece 1964-74: The military coup took place in April 1967, just two
> days before the campaign for national elections was to begin,
> elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader
> George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected
> in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of
> modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had
> begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek
> military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The
> 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law,
> censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims
> totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the
> equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save
> the nation from a "communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive
> influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were
> miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for
> the young would be compulsory.
>
> It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year
> Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by
> Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative
> estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of
> people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with
> equipment supplied by the United States.
>
> Becket reported the following:
>
> Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by
> Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the
> red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to
> show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make
> yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is
> divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this
> side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else.
> What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the
> government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we
> are Americans."
>
> George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-
> communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a
> little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take
> Greece out of the cold war, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or
> at least as a satellite of the United States.
>
> East Timor, 1975 to present: In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East
> Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago,
> and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had
> relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after
> U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had
> left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms,
> which, under U.S. law, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia
> was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
>
> Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with
> the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people
> out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States
> consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN
> and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at
> the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and
> training it needed to carry out the job.
>
> Nicaragua 1978-89: When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza
> dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well
> be that long-dreaded beast -- "another Cuba." Under President Carter,
> attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic
> forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight
> terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by
> Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious
> National Guardsmen and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-
> out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic
> programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics,
> raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were
> Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in
> Nicaragua.
>
> Grenada 1979-84: What would drive the most powerful nation in the
> world to invade a country of 110 thousand? Maurice Bishop and his
> followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual
> policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again
> driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public
> appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region
> met with great enthusiasm.
>
> U.S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon
> after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of
> disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October
> 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or
> wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84
> Cubans, mainly construction workers. What conceivable human purpose
> these people died for has not been revealed.
>
> At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by
> a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the
> human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported
> that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency
> forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and
> abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
>
> In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books
> which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the
> prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-
> confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an
> increasingly authoritarian style."
>
> Libya 1981-89: Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state
> of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would
> have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what
> Libya regarded as its air space. The U.S. also dropped bombs on the
> country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter.
> There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to
> overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions,
> and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any
> good evidence.
>
> Panama, 1989: Washington's mad bombers strike again. December 1989, a
> large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left
> homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian
> forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S.
> and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other
> sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died;
> 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.
>
>
> Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to
> their death for this? To get Noriega?"
>
> George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer,
> yes, it has been worth it."
>
> Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years
> until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only
> motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the
> people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months,
> that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush
> also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress
> the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent
> dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the
> American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had
> known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.
>
> Iraq 1990s: Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights,
> against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East,
> devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds
> of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial
> onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons
> incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological
> weapon storages and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a
> degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive,
> deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on
> health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health
> problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these
> things, even more adults.
>
> Iraq was the strongest military power amongst the Arab states. This
> may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: It's been a
> leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that
> the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be
> effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and,
> crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to
> have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production
> and price.
>
> Afghanistan 1979-92: Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of
> women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even
> before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late
> 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed
> to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century,
> including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that
> the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible
> war against this government, simply because it was supported by the
> Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased
> the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In
> the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of
> Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled,
> five million refugees, in total about half the population.
>
> El Salvador, 1980-92: Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the
> system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible,
> using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protestors
> and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.
>
> Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to
> an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played
> a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were
> killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying
> reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable
> evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The
> war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the
> U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social
> change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own
> the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to
> fear right-wing death squads.
>
>
> Haiti, 1987-94: The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship
> for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand
> Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death
> squads, torturers and drug traffickers. With this as background, the
> Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to
> pretend -- because of all their rhetoric about "democracy" -- that
> they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been
> ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more
> than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide
> to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he
> would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would
> stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would
> continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its
> workers receiving literally starvation wages.
>
>
> Yugoslavia, 1999: The United States is bombing the country back to a
> pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its
> intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps
> the above history of U.S. interventions, can help one decide how much
> weight to place on this claim."
---
Scandalo a Moby Dick. Luttwak ammette:
bombardiamo apposta il popolo Serbo (20 maggio 1999)
Durante la trasmissione odierna di Michele Santoro, Moby Dick su
Italia 1, escono vari retroscena inquietanti. Tra gli invitati: Brutti,
D'Amato, Luttwak, i pescatori dell'Adriatico.
La prima parte della trasmissione è dedicata all'omicidio di
D'Antona e si capisce lo scopo destabilizzante nei confronti del
Governo tant'è che D'Alema ribadisce: non ci lasceremo intimidire.
Subito dopo, i pescatori dell'Adriatico che temono incidenti e la
contaminazione dal contatto con le armi. Le bombe a grappolo
(e non solo) contengono l'Uranio (DU), mentre poco si dice su
eventuali armi chimiche impiegate. Brutti rassicura: le ripescheremo.
Tuttavia emerge che le bombe sono state sganciate dalla Nato anche
in zone non previste. I pescatori, per paura, non escono a pescare.
Inoltre emerge qualcos'altro: la Nato è restia a dare i dati all'Italia
su dove vengono sganciati gli ordigni: ma insomma, nella Nato,
ci siamo o non ci siamo anche noi? Perché se ne parla come
di un'entità separata? [Siamo allo scollamento istituzionale.
Probabilmente ormai la NATO rappresenta solo Blair e Clinton.]
Interviene una Serba. Il popolo Serbo non si farà imporre un
governo dall'esterno. Ribatte Luttwak: infatti il nostro nemico
è il popolo Serbo, non Milosevic. "Se uccidessimo lui, chissà chi
potrebbero ancora eleggere i Serbi..." e continua: "La guerra
l'abbiamo fatta per smembrare la Serbia... e contro il popolo
Serbo (sic!)". [E qui ormai siamo al terrorismo puro.] D'Amato
e poi Santoro chiedono a Luttwak se per caso Luttwak si sente
bene, se è ubriaco o drogato. Luttwak ribatte debolmente che in
fondo non sono poi così cattivi, tant'è che un po' di bombe finiscono
in mare invece che sulla testa dei Serbi. - break pubblicitario e
la trasmissione non viene ripresa senza nemmeno che siano
mandati i titoli di testa. Che sarà successo?
Non è che il terrorismo USA sta un po' esagerando?
(fonte: Marco Saba)
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
* Chronology of 234 U.S. 'Humanitarian Interventions,' 1798-1993
* A Brief History of United States Interventions, 1945 to the Present
* IN ITALIANO: 20 maggio 1999, a "Moby Dick" Luttwak ammette...
---
U. S. Nationalism
by Ezekiel Gonzalez
[Patriot and Pro-Independence Activist in Puerto Rico]
U. S. Nationalism is the most dangerous of all nationalisms. It is a
nationalism based on artificial grounds, on the
idolatry of ideals and on the collective trauma brought on by the
barbarism of the civil war. In reality, the united States
is not "one nation" but a federation. The nationalist identity springs
from the identification with a society within its
ecological environment. This is why nations don't have great territorial
areas. As environments change from region to
region, regional identities also change.
The united States cover many different ecosystems, from Alaska to
Hawaii, from Puerto Rico to New England. In a
natural progression, the inhabitants of each of these regions will
develop their own national collective identity. It is an
historical fact that this is what happened when the southern states
developed a different national identity from the northern
states. Unfortunately, the secessionist desire and struggle of these
states was combined with the fight to preserve the
nefarious institution of slavery. A just cause - national independence -
was amalgamated with an unjust cause - the
preservation of slavery.
The civil war was extremely savage. Millions of people died; the
southern states were devastated. The psychological
trauma was terrible. Uncle Sam astutely had the blame for this tragedy
placed not on federal government imperialism, nor
on the slavist philosophy of the southerners, but on "secessionist
nationalism." In that way, this natural nationalism was
turned into "something evil" in itself, in a collective trauma of
historical proportions.
Taking advantage of the situation and to satisfy the need for a
collective national identity, the federal government
invented the great lie of U. S. Nationalism. Before the civil war, for
example, there were two federal flags: a military
one and a civil one. Moreover, the military federal flag only flew over
federal military installations, and the civil federal flag
flew only over federal civil facilities. Over state facilities, the only
flag that flew was the state flag, exclusively, the one with
which the inhabitants of each state identified politically and
emotionally. After the civil war, the federal civil flag was
forgotten and the federal military flag was imposed on every government
facility, whether military, civil, federal or state.
Natural nationality is not based on ideologies, but on the natural
love the individual has for his native soil and the society
established there. U. S. Nationality, however, is based on the adoration
of certain ideals, on the so-called "American
Dream," as if this were the exclusive property of the American union.
This is an idolatrous nationality, based on fear of the
natural nationality, one which has been sold to Americans as the "U. S.
Nationality." It is a great lie, based on a terrible
historical trauma.
Due to the fear that sustains it and the mistaken idea that the
united States is the "headquarters for liberty and justice
in the world," U. S. Nationality has become an irrational force that
cannot look at itself objectively, but fanatically claims
superiority over every other culture or nationality. It is deathly
afraid to look at itself. Suddenly to discover that the
aspirations which supposedly make up the very foundation of U. S.
Nationality are not really the exclusive property of the
American People, but rather that they're part of the cultural heritage
of the world, threatens the very essence of said
nationality. Justice, freedom and the pursuit of liberty are everyone's
property. Every nation of people, including for
example, the Vietnamese, who fought against the United States not so
long ago, have always held these values to be their
own.
If we put aside the pathological fear of natural nationality, if we
accept the fact that the great values of the so-called
American Dream are really the property of all the nations of the world,
then, what do we have left as a U. S. Nationality? If
anything, maybe we could refer to what is called the "pop culture," and
even that isn't an American cultural asset, but rather
is also something common to every industrialized nation, from Japan to
Germany, from Finland to Chile.
When we look at the really defining elements of nationality:
folklore, religion, history, economy, language, etc., we'll see
that each region, and frequently each state of the union, has its own
features which identify it from among the other regions
and/or states. The only thing many of these regions or states are
lacking to become nations, sociologically
speaking, is to break away from "the pathological fear of proclaiming
its own nationality," which originated in
the tragedy of the civil war, which was instigated by Uncle Sam.
The united States, then, due to the tragedy of the civil war, is
made up of a series of nations which due to their historical
trauma do not dare to proclaim their own nationalities, and they
continue to be subjected to the great lie of a "sole
national identity" proclaimed by the Central Government and undergirded
by the great interstate and international
economic interests.
This great lie of the "Sole National Identity" promotes an
artificial nationalism characterized by: (1) the idea that the
united States is the "most just and the most democratic and most perfect
country in the world,"(2) that the rest of the
world is going from bad to worse and (3) consequently the United States
is "justified" in imposing its culture, political
system and domination on the world. Obviously, this nationalism serves
the imperialist interests of the federal government
and it "authorizes" it to impose its dominion internally (over the
states of the union) as well as externally (over supposedly
independent and sovereign nation-states). Due to the pathological fear
of facing up to the tragedy of the civil war and the
errors committed in it, the U. S. Nationality refuses to engage in
self-evaluation and self-criticism. This characteristic
prevents it from overcoming its own defects.
---
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
(NOTE: The following represents the views of the
author and not necessarily the views of the Naval
Historical Center.)
Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798
- 1993
by Ellen C. Collier, Specialist in U.S. Foreign
Policy,
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service --
Library of Congress -- October 7, 1993
Summary
This report lists 234 instances in which the United
States has used its armed forces abroad in situations
of conflict or potential conflict or for other than
normal peacetime purposes. It brings up to date a 1989
list that was compiled in part from various older
lists and is intended primarily to provide a rough
sketch survey of past U.S. military ventures abroad. A
detailed description and analysis are not undertaken
here.
The instances differ greatly in number of forces,
purpose, extent of hostilities, and legal
authorization. Five of the instances are declared
wars: the War of 1812, the Mexican War of 1846, the
Spanish American War of 1898, World War I declared in
1917, and World War II declared in 1941.
Some of the instances were extended military
engagements that might be considered undeclared wars.
These include the Undeclared Naval War with France
from 1798 to 1800; the First Barbary War from 1801 to
1805; the Second Barbary War of 1815; the Korean War
of 1950-53; the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1973; and the
Persian Gulf War of 1991. In some cases, such as the
Persian Gulf War against Iraq, Congress authorized the
military action although it did not declare war.
The majority of the instances listed were brief Marine
or Navy actions prior to World War II to protect U.S.
citizens or promote U.S. interests. A number were
actions against pirates or bandits. Some were events,
such as the stationing of Marines at an Embassy or
legation, which later were considered normal peacetime
practice. Covert actions, disaster relief, and routine
alliance stationing and training exercises are not
included here, nor are the Civil and Revolutionary
Wars and the continual use of U.S. military units in
the exploration, settlement, and pacification of the
West.
(...)
---
> Subject: Fw: Blum - A brief history of US interventions
>
> Author William Blum offers us a very brief account of US
> interventions since they took over the role of world predators from
> Adolf's legions of Waffen SS and Gestapo terrorists. The history is
> well known to the managers of Western information control, but like
> the Goebbels gang, such realities must remain behind the iron
> curtain of omission - the propagandists' favorite weapon. RR --
>
> http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/blum.htm
> Content-Type: text/html;
> A Brief History of United States Interventions, 1945 to the Present
> By William Blum
>
> The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a
> devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to
> serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
>
> 1) making the world safe for American corporations;
>
> 2) enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home
> who have contributed generously to members of congress;
>
> 3) preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a
> successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
>
> 4) extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as
> possible, as befits a "great power."
>
> This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what
> cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the
> existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in
> fact never existed, evil or not.
>
> The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into
> more than 70 nations in this period. Among these were the following:
>
>
> China 1945-49: Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang
> Kai-shek against the communists, even though the latter had been a
> much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used
> defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The communists
> forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.
>
>
> Italy 1947-48: Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in
> the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power
> legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name
> of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few
> decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to
> intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of
> dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was
> haunting Europe.
>
>
> Greece 1947-49: Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the
> neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis
> courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal
> regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency,
> KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of
> secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.
>
>
> Philippines 1945-53: U.S. military fought against leftist forces
> (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese
> invaders. After the war, the U.S. continued its fight against the
> Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as
> president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.
>
>
> South Korea 1945-53: After World War II, the United States suppressed
> the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had
> collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt,
> reactionary, and brutal governments.
>
>
> Albania 1949-53: U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow
> the communist government and install a new one that would have been
> pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators
> with Italian fascists and Nazis.
>
>
> Germany 1950s: The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of
> sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against
> East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building
> of the Berlin Wall in 1961.
>
>
> Iran 1953: Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S.
> and British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by
> a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake
> of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil
> company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored
> the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of
> repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to
> foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent,
> other nations 20 percent.
>
>
> Guatemala 1953-1990s: A CIA-organized coup overthrew the
> democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz,
> initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass
> executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000
> victims -- indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th
> century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company,
> which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As
> justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had
> been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had
> so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain
> diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in
> addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social
> democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.
>
>
> Middle East 1956-58: The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United
> States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East
> country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any
> country controlled by international communism." The English
> translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or
> have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields
> except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by
> definition, "communist." In keeping with this policy, the United
> States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged
> several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements
> opposed to U.S.-sported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed
> 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate
> Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.
>
>
> Indonesia 1957-58: Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World
> leader the United States could not abide by. He took neutralism in
> the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China
> (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private
> holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. And he refused to
> crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the
> legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such
> policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas."
> Thus it was that the CIA began throwing money into the elections,
> plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phoney
> sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage
> a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.
>
>
> British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64: For 11 years, two of the oldest
> democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went
> to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from
> occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who
> tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times.
> Although a leftist -- more so than Sukarno or Arbenz -- his policies
> in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for
> he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that
> might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist
> model. Using a wide variety of tactics -- from general strikes and
> disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U.S. and
> Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a
> direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
>
>
> One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by
> the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became
> people.
>
>
> Vietnam, 1950-73: The slippery slope began with siding with the
> French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese,
> against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the
> Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was,
> after all, some kind of communist. He had written numerous letters to
> President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help
> in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a
> peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored.
> For he was some kind of communist. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new
> Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it
> with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator
> with ... " But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi
> Minh was some kind of communist.
>
>
> Twenty-three years, and more than a million dead, later, the United
> States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say
> that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core,
> and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington
> had in fact achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have
> been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was,
> after all, some kind of communist.
>
>
> Cambodia 1955-73: Prince Sihanouk, yet another leader who did not
> fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards
> his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous
> Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington
> finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was
> needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray.
> Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing
> had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia
> had been destroyed forever.
>
>
> Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery upon
> this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported
> Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat
> by the Vietnamese.
>
>
> The Congo/Zaire 1960-65: In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the
> Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But
> Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province,
> prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to
> the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a
> host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well
> as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices
> against the natives by the white owners of the country. The poor man
> was obviously a "communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
>
>
> Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September Lumumba was
> dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States,
> and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of
> Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and
> chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger
> to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30
> years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his
> CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the
> plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.
>
>
> Brazil 1961-64: President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual
> crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming
> relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against
> Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits
> multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of
> ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And
> Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing
> "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man
> was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who
> wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not
> enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup
> which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington
> line was ... yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown
> in Brazil ... but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
>
>
> For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship
> which Latin America has come to know and love were instituted:
> Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual
> extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended,
> criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were
> taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by
> police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned
> down, priests were brutalized ... disappearances, death squads, a
> remarkable degree and depravity of torture ... the government had a
> name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
>
>
> Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and
> became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin
> America.
>
>
> Dominican Republic, 1963-66: In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office
> as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican
> Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-
> communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only
> military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought
> "showcase of democracy" that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He
> was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took
> office.
>
>
> Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform; low-rent
> housing; modest nationalization of business; and foreign investment
> provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country; and
> other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World
> leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about the
> thing called civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such,
> were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
>
>
> A number of American officials and congressmen expressed their
> discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence
> from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always
> touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is
> made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
>
>
> In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United
> States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with
> a frown, did nothing.
>
>
> Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the
> exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to
> help crush it.
>
>
> Cuba 1959 to present: Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of
> 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of 10 March 1959
> included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another
> government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist
> attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargos,
> isolation, assassinations ... Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable
> Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in
> Latin America.
>
>
> The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind
> of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly
> under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its
> control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent, the
> internationalism were all there. But we'll never know. And that of
> course was the idea.
>
>
> Indonesia 1965: A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup
> attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with
> American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the
> ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup
> led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately -- of
> communists, communists sympathizers, suspected communists, suspected
> communist sympathizers, and none of the above -- was called by the
> New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern
> political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course
> of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
>
>
> It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of
> "communist" operatives, >from top echelons down to village cadres, as
> many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then
> hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then
> check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It
> really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of
> people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one
> U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have
> to strike hard at a decisive moment."
>
>
> Chile, 1964-73: Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for
> a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than
> a Marxist in power -- an elected Marxist in power, who honored the
> constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very
> foundation stones upon which the anti-communist tower was built: the
> doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can
> take power only through force and deception, that they can retain
> that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
>
>
> After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to
> do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of
> the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their
> attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three
> years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility.
> Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government,
> Allende dying in the process.
>
>
> Thus it was that they closed the country to the outside world for a
> week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the
> stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up
> along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers
> opened for business; the subversive books were thrown to the
> bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In
> Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state;
> and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of
> international finance opened up their check-books. In the end, more
> than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.
>
> Greece 1964-74: The military coup took place in April 1967, just two
> days before the campaign for national elections was to begin,
> elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader
> George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected
> in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of
> modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had
> begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek
> military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The
> 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law,
> censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims
> totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the
> equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save
> the nation from a "communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive
> influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were
> miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for
> the young would be compulsory.
>
> It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year
> Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by
> Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative
> estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of
> people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with
> equipment supplied by the United States.
>
> Becket reported the following:
>
> Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by
> Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the
> red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to
> show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make
> yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is
> divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this
> side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else.
> What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the
> government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we
> are Americans."
>
> George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-
> communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a
> little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take
> Greece out of the cold war, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or
> at least as a satellite of the United States.
>
> East Timor, 1975 to present: In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East
> Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago,
> and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had
> relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after
> U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had
> left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms,
> which, under U.S. law, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia
> was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
>
> Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with
> the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people
> out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States
> consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN
> and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at
> the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and
> training it needed to carry out the job.
>
> Nicaragua 1978-89: When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza
> dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well
> be that long-dreaded beast -- "another Cuba." Under President Carter,
> attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic
> forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight
> terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by
> Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious
> National Guardsmen and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-
> out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic
> programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics,
> raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were
> Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in
> Nicaragua.
>
> Grenada 1979-84: What would drive the most powerful nation in the
> world to invade a country of 110 thousand? Maurice Bishop and his
> followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual
> policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again
> driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public
> appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region
> met with great enthusiasm.
>
> U.S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon
> after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of
> disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October
> 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or
> wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84
> Cubans, mainly construction workers. What conceivable human purpose
> these people died for has not been revealed.
>
> At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by
> a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the
> human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported
> that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency
> forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and
> abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
>
> In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books
> which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the
> prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-
> confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an
> increasingly authoritarian style."
>
> Libya 1981-89: Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state
> of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would
> have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what
> Libya regarded as its air space. The U.S. also dropped bombs on the
> country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter.
> There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to
> overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions,
> and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any
> good evidence.
>
> Panama, 1989: Washington's mad bombers strike again. December 1989, a
> large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left
> homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian
> forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S.
> and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other
> sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died;
> 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.
>
>
> Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to
> their death for this? To get Noriega?"
>
> George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer,
> yes, it has been worth it."
>
> Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years
> until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only
> motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the
> people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months,
> that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush
> also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress
> the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent
> dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the
> American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had
> known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.
>
> Iraq 1990s: Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights,
> against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East,
> devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds
> of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial
> onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons
> incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological
> weapon storages and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a
> degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive,
> deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on
> health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health
> problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these
> things, even more adults.
>
> Iraq was the strongest military power amongst the Arab states. This
> may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: It's been a
> leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that
> the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be
> effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and,
> crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to
> have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production
> and price.
>
> Afghanistan 1979-92: Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of
> women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even
> before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late
> 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed
> to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century,
> including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that
> the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible
> war against this government, simply because it was supported by the
> Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased
> the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In
> the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of
> Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled,
> five million refugees, in total about half the population.
>
> El Salvador, 1980-92: Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the
> system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible,
> using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protestors
> and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.
>
> Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to
> an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played
> a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were
> killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying
> reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable
> evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The
> war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the
> U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social
> change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own
> the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to
> fear right-wing death squads.
>
>
> Haiti, 1987-94: The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship
> for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand
> Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death
> squads, torturers and drug traffickers. With this as background, the
> Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to
> pretend -- because of all their rhetoric about "democracy" -- that
> they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been
> ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more
> than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide
> to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he
> would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would
> stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would
> continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its
> workers receiving literally starvation wages.
>
>
> Yugoslavia, 1999: The United States is bombing the country back to a
> pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its
> intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps
> the above history of U.S. interventions, can help one decide how much
> weight to place on this claim."
---
Scandalo a Moby Dick. Luttwak ammette:
bombardiamo apposta il popolo Serbo (20 maggio 1999)
Durante la trasmissione odierna di Michele Santoro, Moby Dick su
Italia 1, escono vari retroscena inquietanti. Tra gli invitati: Brutti,
D'Amato, Luttwak, i pescatori dell'Adriatico.
La prima parte della trasmissione è dedicata all'omicidio di
D'Antona e si capisce lo scopo destabilizzante nei confronti del
Governo tant'è che D'Alema ribadisce: non ci lasceremo intimidire.
Subito dopo, i pescatori dell'Adriatico che temono incidenti e la
contaminazione dal contatto con le armi. Le bombe a grappolo
(e non solo) contengono l'Uranio (DU), mentre poco si dice su
eventuali armi chimiche impiegate. Brutti rassicura: le ripescheremo.
Tuttavia emerge che le bombe sono state sganciate dalla Nato anche
in zone non previste. I pescatori, per paura, non escono a pescare.
Inoltre emerge qualcos'altro: la Nato è restia a dare i dati all'Italia
su dove vengono sganciati gli ordigni: ma insomma, nella Nato,
ci siamo o non ci siamo anche noi? Perché se ne parla come
di un'entità separata? [Siamo allo scollamento istituzionale.
Probabilmente ormai la NATO rappresenta solo Blair e Clinton.]
Interviene una Serba. Il popolo Serbo non si farà imporre un
governo dall'esterno. Ribatte Luttwak: infatti il nostro nemico
è il popolo Serbo, non Milosevic. "Se uccidessimo lui, chissà chi
potrebbero ancora eleggere i Serbi..." e continua: "La guerra
l'abbiamo fatta per smembrare la Serbia... e contro il popolo
Serbo (sic!)". [E qui ormai siamo al terrorismo puro.] D'Amato
e poi Santoro chiedono a Luttwak se per caso Luttwak si sente
bene, se è ubriaco o drogato. Luttwak ribatte debolmente che in
fondo non sono poi così cattivi, tant'è che un po' di bombe finiscono
in mare invece che sulla testa dei Serbi. - break pubblicitario e
la trasmissione non viene ripresa senza nemmeno che siano
mandati i titoli di testa. Che sarà successo?
Non è che il terrorismo USA sta un po' esagerando?
(fonte: Marco Saba)
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------