David Swanson -- U.S. Troops Back in Saudi Arabia: What Could Go Wrong?

Please republish and share, but only without editing and with credit and link to original included. Thanks!

U.S. Troops Back in Saudi Arabia: What Could Go Wrong?

By David Swanson

http://davidswanson.org/u-s-troops-back-in-saudi-arabia-what-could-go-wrong/

The First Gulf War back in 1990 was a big huge success. One of the things it accomplished was a major U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia. Muslims around the world were outraged. Bombs were repeatedly set off at Khobar Towers where troops were stationed. In 1998 Osama Bin Laden declared:

“For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. . . . The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.”

In 2001, the World Trade Center in New York was destroyed and the Pentagon damaged. A year and a half later, the United States removed most of its troops from Saudi Arabia, leaving some behind with various excuses and under various euphemistic labels. When Barack Obama was president, the CIA opened a drone base in Saudi Arabia from which to murder people in Yemen with missiles from robotic airplanes. This, of course, stabilized Yemen which has known peace and prosperity ever since, or something. Now, in 2019, the United States is sending more troops into Saudi Arabia again.

What could go wrong?

Well, let’s state the obvious in order to move on to stating the obvious. Killing people is insane and evil. Religion is insane and evil (except yours, dear reader). Killing people because of your religion is insane and evil. Nothing whatsoever, no insane and evil killing, can justify any other insane and evil killing.

Now, moving on to the obvious, let me quote from Peace Science Digest: “Deployment of troops to another country increases the chance of attacks from terror organizations from that country. Weapons exports to another country increase the chance of attacks from terror organizations from that country. 95% of all suicide terrorist attacks are conducted to encourage foreign occupiers to leave the terrorist’s home country.”

I’m not aware of a foreign terrorist threat, attempt, or action against the United States, in which a motivation was stated, where that motivation was anything other than opposition to U.S. military imperialism. Statistically, religion doesn’t seem to have anything to do with it. If you occupy another country, people get mad — with or without religion.

This is part of a broader picture of counter-productive self-defeating masochism. Terrorism has predictably increased during the war on terrorism (as measured by the Global Terrorism Index). 99.5% of terrorist attacks occur in countries engaged in wars and/or engaged in abuses such as imprisonment without trial, torture, or lawless killing. The highest rates of terrorism are in “liberated” and “democratized” Iraq and Afghanistan. The terrorist groups responsible for the most terrorism (that is, non-state, politically motivated violence) around the world have grown out of U.S. wars against terrorism.

So, why did I say that the war that launched all of this was a big huge success? Well, it depends on your perspective. If the goal is to sell weapons, putting more troops into Saudi Arabia is brilliant. If the goal is to provoke more violence and get more wars going, nothing could be better. If the goal is persuading people that you are attacking their religion and will listen to nothing other than violence, everything seems right on course. You’re winning. Pretty soon, as Trump promised, a lot of us are going to be truly sick of all this winning.

David Swanson -- NATO Interrupted

NATO Interrupted

By David Swanson

http://davidswanson.org/nato-interrupted/

Wednesday morning an event was held in a building overlooking Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C., at an organization called the Center for European Policy Analysis, which is funded by: FireEye, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Bell Helicopters, BAE systems, the U.S. State Department, the Pentagon, National Endowment for Democracy, the U.S. Mission to NATO, and NATO’s own Public Diplomacy Division.

Participating in the event were several foreign ministers from NATO nations, ambassadors to NATO, and U.S. Senator Chris Murphy. NATO is designed to vigilantly protect you from numerous imaginary and NATO-provoked dangers, but its events are apparently protected by magic spells, as I just walked in and took a seat.

When I couldn’t take any more of the pro-militarism talk, I stood up and interrupted, holding up a sign reading: “Yes to Peace / NoToNATO.org.” Lots of media cameras were in the room, so there is bound to be video somewhere. (Please share it with me.) I said words to this general effect:

NATO needs to be shut down, not enlarged. Russia spends a tiny percentage of what NATO nations do on war, and you pretend to be afraid of Russia. We’re not buying it. You’re provoking dangers. NATO makes up 3/4 of military spending in the world. Its members are also responsible for about 3/4 of foreign weapons dealing — to dictatorships and so-called democracies around the world. NATO wages aggressive wars far from the North Atlantic. The people you can hear chanting outside have had enough. We’re not believing these myths anymore.

David Swanson -- Greatest Crime on Earth

Greatest Crime on Earth

By David Swanson, Director, World BEYOND War

Remarks at No Bases Conference in Dublin, Ireland, November 18, 2018

I’m willing to bet that if I asked everyone in Ireland whether the Irish government should take orders from Donald Trump, most people would say no. But last year the Irish Ambassador to the United States came to the University of Virginia, and I asked her how allowing U.S. troops to use Shannon Airport to get to their wars could possibly be in compliance with Irish neutrality. She replied that the U.S. government “at the highest level” had assured her it was all perfectly legal. And she apparently bowed and obeyed. But I don’t think the people of Ireland are as inclined to sit and roll over on command as their ambassador.

Collaboration in crimes is not legal.

Bombing people’s houses is not legal.

Threatening new wars is not legal.

Keeping nuclear weapons in other people’s countries is not legal.

Propping up dictators, organizing assassins, murdering people with robotic airplanes: none of it is legal.

U.S. military bases around the world are the local franchises of the greatest criminal enterprise on earth!

Prima Conferenza Internazionale Contro le Basi Militari USA/NATO in svolgimento a Dublino

Alla First International Conference Against US/NATO Military Bases (Prima Conferenza Internazionale Contro le Basi Militari USA/NATO) in svolgimento a Dublino, viene proiettato -- sabato 17 novembre,  circa alle 20 (ora italiana) -- il video del Comitato No Guerra No Nato in inglese ITALY: A WHOLE US/NATO STRATEGIC BASE (L’ITALIA BASE STRATEGICA USA/NATO), realizzato da Pandora TV.   Viene presentato all’assemblea plenaria da Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti, portavoce della delegazione del Comitato No Guerra No Nato composta da quattro persone.

Alla Conferenza — organizzata congiuntamente dalla Peace and Neutrality Alliance (Irlanda) e dalla  Coalition Against US Foreign Military Bases (USA). partecipano come sostenitrici 35 organizzazioni internazionali e nazionali, da Nord America, Europa, Asia e Medio Oriente, tra cui il Comitato No Guerra No Nato. 

============================================

Canale: streaming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0-IQIWNFpI&fbclid=IwAR0i_bAAiCcZ2v0ZE1aM50Nlc6S0RKbaKhHpQ_lyTivWM8j1UVZmvY39-6w

NO WAR NO NATO -- Against the ‘Rotten Empire’: Women’s March on the Pentagon 2018

Against the ‘Rotten Empire’: Women’s March on the Pentagon 2018

© REUTERS / Ivan Alvarado

LIFE

23:12 21.10.2018(updated 23:27 21.10.2018)Get short URL

Reintroducing the language of peace into America’s increasingly polarizing cultural conversation.

Massive Anti-War Rally Held Near Pentagon (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

Seeking no less than a complete end to all US military actions abroad and the closure of all foreign military bases, the 2018 Women's March on the Pentagon is a bipartisan call to profoundly shrink the Pentagon budget and use the cash to fund healthy and much-needed social programs in America.

Commemorating, in part, the 51st anniversary of the landmark 1967 Washington DC anti-war march, the Sunday, October 21, 2018, Women's March on the Pentagon (WMOP), coincided with sister events in cities across the United States.

WMOP is, according to their website, responding to the consistently growing number of actions worldwide by the military forces of the United States over the past several decades. The group looks to place the political and cultural focus of the country on peace, instead of legacy conflicts in the Middle East, northern Africa and many other locations across the globe, according to Heavy.com.

From the WMOP website:

"Our demands are simple: The complete end to the wars abroad; closure of foreign bases; dramatically slash the Pentagon budget to fund healthy social programs here at home."

Two Koreas agree: 

- to completely denuclearize Korean peninsula 
- to hold multi-party talks, involving US and China 
- to have high-level military talks in May - to establish 'firm peace regime' 
- Kim said he hopes two Koreas will reunite

New era, no more war: Two Koreas agree on complete denuclearization

Published time: 27 Apr, 2018 09:05Edited time: 27 Apr, 2018 09:59

Get short URL

South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un © Reuters

A new era of peace is beginning, according to a declaration signed by the leaders of North and South Korea after their first meeting in over a decade. Both nations are aiming to completely denuclearize the Korean peninsula.

Read more

After 10 years of silence, N. Korea’s Kim wants to talk to South more

"South and North Korea affirmed their shared objective of achieving a nuclear-free Korean peninsula through complete denuclearization,"reads the declaration signed by the leaders of the two countries, as cited by Yonhap.

“There will be no more war on the Korean peninsula, and a new age of peace has opened," the document adds.

The two sides also agreed to hold multi-party talks, involving the US and China, in their push for a full-scale truce. Pyongyang and Seoul are also to have high-level military talks in May.

In an ambitious statement after the signing ceremony, Kim said he hopes that the two Koreas will reunite. The states separated after the WWII and have remained hostile since the Korean War ended with an armistice, rather than a peace treaty, in 1953.

“Terminating the current state of the truce and establishing a firm peace regime is a historic task that [the two Koreas] can no longer delay," the leaders pointed out.

Meinung

Diether Dehm hat alles richtig gemacht – und korrigiert sich: Heiko Maas ist "NATO-Strichmännchen"

5.04.2018 • 19:51 Uhr

https://de.rt.com/1gcn

Quelle: www.globallookpress.com

Diether Dehm war einer der wenigen prominenten Linken, die es 2014 wagten, beim "Friedenswinter" gegen Krieg zu demonstrieren.

Der Linken-Politiker Dieter Dehm ist dafür kritisiert worden, dass er Heiko Maas einen "NATO-Strichjungen" nannte. In einem Interview äußert er Verständnis für die Kritik, verteidigt aber zu Recht undiplomatische Äußerungen: Alles andere versinke "im Mainstreambrei".

Von Thomas Schwarz

Wenn der Linken-Politiker Diether Dehm die nächsten Tage ohne Partei-Ausschlussverfahren übersteht, dann hat er alles richtig gemacht. Mit seiner drastischen Wortwahl, der deutsche Außenminister sei ein "NATO-Strichjunge", hat er nicht nur sich selber als Person, Provokateur und Politiker schlagartig in alle Medien der Republik katapultiert und seine Bekanntheit über Nacht signifikant gesteigert. Er hat zusätzlich einer politischen Botschaft zu einer sensationellen Verbreitung verholfen, die ansonsten tatsächlich "im Mainstreambrei" versunken wäre, wie Dehm nun in einem Interview mit der FAZ 

Fake News” and World War III. The Danger of Nuclear Annihilation

Fake News” and World War III. The Danger of Nuclear Annihilation

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, March 09, 2018

Theme: Crimes against Humanity, US NATO War Agenda

In-depth Report: Nuclear War

We are at a dangerous crossroads in our history.

The dangers of a Third World War are routinely obfuscated by the media. A world of fantasy permeates the mainstream media which tacitly upholds the conduct of nuclear war as a peace-making endeavor. 

World War III is terminal. Albert Einstein understood the perils of nuclear war and the extinction of life on earth, which has already started with the radioactive contamination resulting from depleted uranium.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

The media, the intellectuals, the scientists and the politicians, in chorus, obfuscate the untold truth, namely that war using nuclear warheads destroys humanity, and that this complex process of gradual destruction has already commenced.

“Fake New” has become “Real News”. 

And “Real News” by the independent online media is now tagged as Russian propaganda.

In turn, the independent media (including Global Research) is the object of censorship via the search engines and social media. 

What we are dealing with is a War against the Truth. Objective reporting on the dangers of a Third World war is being suppressed. Why? 

The future of humanity is at stake. The danger of nuclear annihilation is not front-page news.

The unfolding consensus among Pentagon war planners is that a Third World War is “Winnable”.  

Nuclear War as an “Instrument of Peace”

Concepts are turned upside down. Political insanity prevails. 

A diabolical discourse is unfolding.  The so-called “more usable” tactical nuclear weapons (B61-11, B61-12) with an explosive capacity between one third and twelve times a Hiroshima bomb are heralded (by scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon) as “peace-making” bombs, “harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground”.

These are the weapons which are contemplated for use against North Korea (or Iran) in what is described by the Pentagon as “a bloody nose operation”, with limited civilian casualties. And the corporate media applauds.

Fake News: these nuclear bombs are WMD. The “Bloody Nose” (“safe for civilians”) Concept is “Fake News”

Lest we forget, when the first atomic was dropped on Hiroshima (see image below), 100,000 people died within the first seven seconds following the explosion. Needless to say, today’s nuclear weapons are far more advanced than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

When war becomes peace, the world is turned upside down. Conceptualization is no longer possible.  Insanity prevails. The institutions of government are criminalized and so is the media.

The Pentagon and NATO are beating the drums of war. What is at stake is a Worldwide media disinformation campaign in support of a Third World War, which almost inevitably would lead to nuclear annihilation.

In the words of Fidel Castro: “In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity”.

“The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity. …

Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don’t harbour the least doubt that an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.

…

There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people.

In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.

Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!” (Complete text and video recording, October 2010 Interview with Fidel Castro by Michel Chossudovsky)

When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards.

IT -- Manlio Dinucci -- L’arte della guerra: Torna l’incubo dei missili a Comiso

Abbiamo bisogno di traduttori per queste lingue

AL, DE, BG, HR, DK, SK, SI, EE, GR, NL, HU, ISL, LT, LU, NO, PL, CZ, TR, RU, ZH

Contatto:

luisavasconcellos2012@gmail.com

L’arte della guerra

Torna l’incubo dei missili a Comiso

Manlio Dinucci

Il piano fu preannunciato tre anni fa, durante l’amministrazone Obama, quando funzionari del Pentagono  dichiararono che «di fronte all’aggressione russa, gli Stati uniti stanno considerando lo spiegamento in Europa di missili con base a terra» (il manifesto, 9 giugno 2015). Ora, con l’amministrazione Trump, esso viene ufficialmente confermato.

Nell’anno fiscale 2018 il Congresso degli Stati Uniti ha autorizzato il finanziamento di «un programma di ricerca e sviluppo di un missile da crociera lanciato da terra da piattaforma mobile su strada». È un missile a capacità nucleare con raggio intermedio (tra 500 e 5500 km), analogo ai 112 missili nucleari Cruise schierati dagli USA a Comiso negli anni Ottanta. Essi vennero eliminati, insieme ai missili balistici Pershing 2 schierati dagli USA in Germania e agli SS-20 sovietici schierati in URSS, dal Trattato sulle Forze Nucleari Intermedie (INF), stipulato nel 1987. Esso proibisce lo schieramento di missili con base a terra e gittata compresa tra 500 e 5500 km.

Washington accusa ora Mosca di schierare missili di questa categoria e dichiara che, «se la Russia continua a violare il Trattato INF, gli Stati uniti non saranno più vincolati da tale trattato», ossia saranno liberi di schierare in Europa missili nucleari a raggio intermedio con base a terra.

Viene però ignorato un fatto determinante: i missili russi (ammesso che siano a raggio intermedio) sono schierati in funzione difensiva in territorio russo, mentre quelli statunitensi a raggio intermedio sarebbero schierati in funzione offensiva in Europa a ridosso del territorio russo. È come se la Russia schierasse in Messico missili nucleari puntati sugli Stati uniti.

Poiché continua la escalation USA/NATO, è sempre più probabile lo schieramento di tali missili in Europa. Intanto l’Ucraina ha testato agli inizi di febbraio un missile a raggio intermedio con base a terra, realizzato sicuramente con l’assistenza USA.

I nuovi missili nucleari statunitensi – molto più precisi e veloci dei Cruise degli anni Ottanta – verrebbero schierati in Italia e probabilmente anche in paesi dell’Est, aggiungendosi alle bombe nucleari Usa B61-12 che arriveranno in Italia e altri paesi dal 2020.

In Italia, i nuovi Cruise sarebbero con tutta probabilità di nuovo posizionati in Sicilia, anche se non necessariamente a Comiso. Nell’isola vi sono due installazioni USA di primaria importanza strategica. La stazione Muos di Niscemi, una delle quattro su scala mondiale (2 negli Usa, 1 in Australia e 1 in Sicilia)  del  sistema di comunicazioni satellitari che collega a un’unica rete di comando tutte le forze statunitensi, anche nucleari, in qualsiasi parte del mondo si trovino. La Jtags, stazione di ricezione e trasmissione satellitare dello «scudo anti-missili» statunitense, che sta per devenire operativa a Sigonella. È una delle cinque su scala mondiale (le altre si trovano negli  Stati Uniti, in Arabia Saudita, Corea del Sud e Giappone).

La stazione, che è trasportabile, serve non solo alla difesa anti-missile ma anche alle operazioni di attacco, condotte da basi avanzate come quelle in Italia.

«Gli Stati Uniti – spiega il Pentagono nel rapporto «Nuclear Posture Review 2018» – impegnano armi nucleari, dispiegate in basi avanzate in Europa, per la difesa della NATO. Queste forze nucleari costituiscono un essenziale legame politico e militare tra Europa e Nord America».

Legandoci alla loro strategia non solo militarmente ma politicamente, gli Stati uniti trasformano sempre più il nostro paese in base avanzata delle loro armi nucleari puntate sulla Russia e, quindi, in bersaglio avanzato su cui sono puntate le armi nucleari russe. 

Il manifesto, 27 febbraio 2018

NO WAR NO NATO

SIGN THIS PETITON

https://www.pandoratv.it/category/opinioni/manlio-dinucci-opinioni/

PT -- Manlio Dinucci -- A Arte da Guerra: Regressa o pesadelo dos mísseis em Comiso

Solicitamos tradutores voluntários para estas línguas

AL, DE, BG, HR, NSP, SK, SI, EE, GR, NL, HU, ISL, LT, LU, NO, PL, CZ, TR, RU, ZH

Contact:

luisavasconcellos2012@gmail.com

A Arte da Guerra

Regressa o pesadelo dos mísseis em Comiso

Manlio Dinucci

O plano foi pré-anunciado há três anos, durante a Administração Obama, quando os oficiais do Pentágono declararam que, «perante a agressão russa, os Estados Unidos estão a considerar a instalação de mísseis terrestres na Europa, com base no solo» (Il manifesto, 9 de Junho 2015). Agora, com a Administração Trump, o mesmo está oficialmente confirmado.

No ano fiscal de 2018, o Congresso dos Estados Unidos autorizou o financiamento de «um programa de pesquisa e desenvolvimento de um míssil de cruzeiro lançado a partir do solo, por uma plataforma móvel numa estrada». É um míssil de capacidade nuclear com um raio de alcance intermédio (entre 500 e 5500 km), semelhante aos 112 mísseis nucleares Cruise instalados pelos Estados Unidos em Comiso, na década de 1980. Eles foram eliminados, juntamente com os mísseis balísticos Pershing 2, colocados pelos EUA na Alemanha e com os SS-20 soviéticos, colocados na URSS, de acordo com o Tratado de Forças Nucleares Intermédias (INF), assinado em 1987. O mesmo proíbe a instalação de mísseis terrestres com base no solo e alcance entre 500 e 5500 km.

Washington agora acusa Moscovo de instalar mísseis desta categoria e declara que «se a Rússia continuar a violar o Tratado INF, os Estados Unidos não estarão mais vinculados por esse tratado», ou seja, serão livres para implantar, na Europa, mísseis nucleares de alcance intermedio com base de lançamento a partir do solo.

No entanto, é ignorado um facto decisivo: os mísseis russos (admitindo que eles são de alcance intermédio) estão instalados numa posição defensiva, no território russo, enquanto os mísseis de alcance intermédio dos EUA são colocados  numa posição ofensiva, na Europa, perto do território russo. É como se a Rússia tivesse colocado mísseis nucleares voltados para os Estados Unidos, no México.

Visto que continua a escalada EUA/NATO, a instalação de tais mísseis na Europa, é cada vez mais provável. Entretanto, no início de Fevereiro, a Ucrânia testou um míssil de alcance intermédio terrestre, que certamente foi criado com a assistência dos EUA.

Os novos mísseis nucleares dos EUA - muito mais precisos e rápidos do que os mísseis de cruzeiro dos anos oitenta - serão implantados na Itália e provavelmente também nos países de Leste, juntando-se às bombas nucleares norte-americanas B61-12, que chegarão à Itália e a outros países, a partir de 2020.

Na Itália, os novos mísseis de cruzeiro, serão provavelmente posicionados, de novo, na Sicília, embora não necessariamente em Comiso. Na ilha existem duas instalações dos EUA, de primeira importância estratégica. A estação MUOS, de Niscemi, uma das quatro, em escala mundial (2 nos EUA, 1 na Austrália e 1 na Sicília) do sistema de comunicações por satélite que liga, a uma única rede de comando, todas as forças dos EUA, até mesmo as forças nucleares, em qualquer lugar do mundo onde se encontrem. O JTAGS, uma estação de recepção e transmissão de satélite do «escudo anti-míssil» dos EUA, está prestes a funcionar, em Sigonella. É um dos cinco a escala mundial (os outros estão nos Estados Unidos, na Arábia Saudita, na Coreia do Sul e no Japão).

A estação, que é transportável, serve não só a defesa anti-míssil, mas também as operações de ataque, conduzidas por bases avançadas como as da Itália.

"Os Estados Unidos - explica o Pentágono no relatório «Nuclear Posture Review 2018» - empregam armas nucleares, instaladas em bases avançadas, na Europa, para a defesa da NATO. Essas forças nucleares constituem, essencialmente, um vínculo político e militar essencial entre a Europa e a América do Norte».

Ligando-nos à sua estratégia, não só militarmente, mas  também politicamente, os Estados Unidos transformam cada vez mais o nosso país numa base avançada das suas armas nucleares apontadas para a Rússia e, portanto, num alvo avançado sobre o qual estão apontadas, as armas nucleares russas.

Il manifesto, 27 de Fevereiro 2018

NO WAR NO NATO

SIGN THIS PETITON

https://www.pandoratv.it/category/opinioni/manlio-dinucci-opinioni/