Shane Quinn -- The Pentagon’s 36 Military Bases in Africa. America’s Growing Military Presence

The Pentagon’s 36 Military Bases in Africa. America’s Growing Military Presence

By Shane Quinn

Global Research, December 06, 2019

Region: Middle East & North Africa

Theme: Militarization and WMD, US NATO War Agenda

Africa now contains 1.3 billion inhabitants, almost twice that of Europe’s population, and the number of African people continues expanding rapidly in what comprises the world’s second biggest continent.

Following five centuries of pillage and exploitation by Western imperial powers, Africa is today riddled with poverty and social injustice. Africa remains a sought after land mass for the world’s strongest states. One of the reasons for this is that two African nations, Libya in the north and Nigeria further south, contain the world’s 9th and 10th largest oil reserves respectively.

Among the motives behind the March 2011 United States-NATO military assault on Libya, was to reinstate control over that country’s oil sources, which under Muammar Gaddafi was becoming increasingly uncertain. Seven months later, on 20 October 2011, Gaddafi was viciously murdered by NATO-backed forces. His son Mutassim Gaddafi, the former National Security Advisor of Libya, was also killed that same day in a premeditated and cold-blooded fashion.

The 69-year-old Gaddafi’s unseemly death was generally applauded in the West. Norway’s then prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, and the current NATO Secretary General, described Gaddafi’s liquidation as “a turning point for Libya”. Indeed, it was a turning point, as Libya was splintered apart into warring factions, with the nation since descending into chaos and ruin. Britain’s prime minister at the time, David Cameron, said upon hearing of Gaddafi’s death that Libya would have “an even greater chance, after this news, of building themselves a strong and democratic future”.

Shane Quinn -- Obtaining Nuclear Weapons Comes at a Great Psychological Price

Obtaining Nuclear Weapons Comes at a Great Psychological Price

World War II is “child's play” by comparison to nuclear war.

By Shane Quinn

Global Research, September 24, 2018

Region: USA

Theme: History, Militarization and WMD

In-depth Report: Nuclear War

There is surely a severe cost afflicted on any nation that successfully acquires a nuclear arsenal. Not merely a financial burden but, more significantly, a psychological price that is paid by those who attain, safeguard and threaten the deployment of nuclear weapons. Their possession warps the persona of a state’s leaders, ensuring they become reckless, malevolent and unpredictable.

The atomic bomb’s arrival in August 1945 brought with it a terrible psychosis that has threatened the globe for seven decades. Nuclear weapons have unleashed the worst tendencies in humankind, revealing a suicidal, blind streak that seems to be embedded in our species’ mindset. Over the past few centuries, humans have attacked each other with increasing coldness, reaching a high point during the Second World War with 50 million or more killed.

As the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev said to America’s new president Gerald Ford in November 1974,

“Both you and I fought in World War II. That war was child’s play as compared to nuclear war”.

During the second half of World War II, military plans for aerial or ground assaults calculated death tolls in the thousands, or tens of thousands, which seemed almost apocalyptic at the time. With the atomic bomb’s invention, and from November 1952 the hydrogen bomb, the death estimates suddenly jumped to millions, then tens of millions.

US-led NATO Militarization Increases Global Threat

US-led NATO Militarization Increases Global Threat

NATO has many wide-ranging tasks designed to enforce American dominance.

By Shane Quinn

Global Research, May 01, 2018

Region: Europe, Russia and FSU

Theme: Militarization and WMD, US NATO War Agenda

In-depth Report: UKRAINE REPORT

The American academic and author John J. Mearsheimer outlined that “the taproot of the current [Ukrainian] crisis is NATO expansion and Washington’s commitment to move Ukraine out of Moscow’s orbit and integrate it into the West”. Mearsheimer claimed that the Russian president Vladimir Putin saw such an act as “a direct threat to Russia’s core interests”.

Putin’s viewpoint is hardly unrealistic as the Ukraine, a country almost twice the size of Germany, lies along a vast stretch of Russia’s western border. Almost 30% of the Ukraine’s population of 45 million speak Russian as their native language, with much of those residing in the country’s eastern half. The historical ties between the neighbors run deep. In 1922, Russia and the Ukraine were the Soviet Union’s founding members, and were later the signatories of the treaty that ended the decaying socialist state in the early 1990s.

During the Second World War, a remarkable seven million Ukrainians fought in the Moscow-led Soviet Army, which performed the leading role in ridding the world of Nazism. By war’s end, about half of the seven million Ukrainian soldiers were killed by Hitler’s forces. Much of them fought through the liberation of their birth nation, which had been overrun by the Nazis in the second half of 1941 – the capital Kiev was retaken by Christmas 1943 after weeks of bloody fighting.

Elsewhere, while Russia (and China) face rising provocations, the United States itself does not permit hostile powers to establish military forces anywhere in the Western hemisphere, let alone near its frontiers. Were a rival entity to direct its naval crews towards the Atlantic and across to the Caribbean Sea, they would face certain annihilation. Also terminated would be any efforts to overthrow governments in Canada or Mexico.

America’s historical military standpoint goes even further than that. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which outlined complete US dominance of the Western hemisphere, also does not tolerate any “successful defiance” of the superpower. The doctrine was first expounded by James Monroe, America’s fifth president (1817-1825) and Founding Father.

PT -- SHANE QUINN -- A GUERRA ESQUECIDA DA AMÉRICA COM O MÉXICO

A GUERRA ESQUECIDA DA AMÉRICA COM O MÉXICO

A guerra de expansão da América no México, apoiada pelos jornais e políticos, tem repercussões até aos dias de hoje.

por SHANE QUINN 

Dezembro 3, 2017, 22:52

Reflectindo sobre a sua vida ao morrer de cancro na garganta, em 1885, o antigo Presidente dos EUA, Ulysses S. Grant disse que a guerra mexicano-americana foi “a guerra mais perversa da História. "Eu considerava  o mesmo nessa época, quando era jovem, só não tive coragem moral suficiente para renunciar ”.

Grant teve a experiência em primeira mão porque lutou na Guerra Mexicano-Americana (1846-1848), na ocasião, como oficial subalterno nos seus 20 e poucos anos. Cerca de duas décadas depois, destacou-se como uma das figuras mais importantes durante a Guerra Civil Americana - como Comandante Geral, o seu poderoso Exército da União, finalmente, esmagou os Confederados com poucos recursos.

Grant tornar-se-ia um presidente americano de dois mandatos (1869-1877), assumindo inicialmente o cargo com relutância. “Fui forçado a sê-lo, embora não quisesse”, como referiu quando escreveu a William Sherman, um colega do Exército da União, durante a guerra civil.

Apesar do envolvimento em vários conflitos, a Guerra Mexicano-Americana  aterrorizou Grant até ao fim. “Tive horror à Guerra Mexicana e sempre acreditei que,da nossa parte, era muito injusto. A maldade estava na condução da guerra. Não tínhamos o direito de reivindicar nada ao México. O Texas não era nosso para além do rio Nueces, e ainda assim pressionamos até ao Rio Grande e atravessamos. Envergonho-me do meu país quando penso nessa invasão”.

Hoje, o que chama a atenção nos pontos de vista de Grant, é quão notavelmente sinceros eles são. Seria impensável, nos séculos seguintes, que os presidentes dos Estados Unidos proferirem-se dúvidas éticas sobre os ataques à Coreia, ao Vietnam, ao Afeganistão ou ao Iraque - apesar de  ter havido muito maior destruição e perda de vidas.

A derrota do México robusteceu a expansão do tamanho territorial dos EUA em quase 25%. O Texas havia sido inicialmente desanexado do México em 1845, um estado quase três vezes maior do que a Grã-Bretanha.

O governo mexicano recusou reconhecer a incorporação ilegal do Texas no terreno americano. Em Maio do ano seguinte (1846), os EUA declararam guerra ao vizinho do sul. O Presidente dos EUA, James K. Polk, utilizou o pretexto de que as forças mexicanas atacantes haviam “ultrapassado a fronteira dos Estados Unidos [no Texas], invadido nosso território e derramado sangue americano em solo americano”.

Na verdade, o “solo americano” era o solo mexicano anexado para se tornar parte dos EUA. Os norte-americanos aguardavam uma artimanha em que poderiam atacar o México sem causar alvoroço popular indesejado, permitindo aos Estados Unidos conseguir mais vantagens na terra mexicana.

Desde então, houve pouca exigência da parte dos líderes democráticos para que os EUA devolvam os territórios roubados ao México – ou, pelo menos, para reconhecerem que foi infligido a esse país, uma injustiça grosseira.

Pelo contrário, ouvimos lamentos hipócritas sobre a “anexação” da Criméia pela Rússia em 2014 - uma região que foi inicialmente parte da Rússia (de 1783 a 1917) e depois, mais tarde, sob a égide da URSS (1917-1991).

O principal objectivo da guerra de conquista da América sobre o México, foi ganhar o monopólio da produção do algodão. No século XIX, o algodão era tão vital como hoje é o petróleo, e também representava uma mercadoria fundamental da indústria esclavagista. O controlo do algodão “traria a Inglaterra a seus pés”. O Presidente Polk reconheceu-o abertamente, assim como o seu antecessor imediato, o antigo Presidente John Tyler.

De facto, Tyler declarou sobre a anexação do Texas, em 1845, “Ao assegurar o monopólio factível da planta de algodão”, os Estados Unidos haviam adquirido “uma influência maior sobre os acontecimentos mundiais do que se tivesse utilizado exércitos por mais fortes que eles fossem, ou forças navais por mais numerosas que as mesmas fossem”.

Tyler continuou: “Esse monopólio, agora garantido, coloca todas as outras nações aos nossos pés. Um embargo durante apenas um ano produziria, na Europa, mais sofrimento do que uma guerra de cinquenta anos. Duvido que a Grã-Bretanha possa evitar convulsões ”.

A vitória americana sobre o México, em Fevereiro de 1848, conduziu ao Tratado de Guadalupe Hidalgo. Viu os EUA apoderarem-se não apenas do Texas, no México, mas também da Califórnia, metade do Novo México, a maior parte do Arizona, Nevada e Utah, juntamente com partes do Wyoming e do Colorado. Muitas dessas áreas eram ricas em algodão, o que significa que as conquistas foram uma apoderação de terras desmedida, cujas repercussões duram até ao dia actual.

De acordo com os tempos modernos, a Free Press defendeu as intervenções ilegais da América. James Gordon Bennett - editor e fundador do New York Herald - o jornal mais vendido dos EUA, nessa época, considerando correcto, escreveu que a Grã-Bretanha estava “completamente amarrada e algemada com cordas de algodão. Uma alavanca com a qual podemos controlar de maneira bem sucedida”, o principal rival dos EUA. Nem uma palavra sobre as acções injustificadas, infligidas contra o México.

De facto, Bennett tinha esperança que o destino dos mexicanos seria “semelhante ao dos índios deste país - a raça será extinta, antes deste século terminar”. Ele escreveu sobre a “imbecilidade e degradação do povo mexicano”.

Bennett foi uma das principais figuras da História da imprensa americana e sentiu que “a ideia de fusão [das raças] tinha sido sempre  intolerável para a raça anglo-saxónica neste continente”.

O editor do Cincinnati Herald descreveu os mexicanos como “raças mestiças degradadas”, como os nativos americanos. O editor do Augusta Daily Chronicle, na Geórgia, fez um aviso prévio, em 1846, de que atacar o México provavelmente revelaria “uma mistura repugnante, consistindo numa mistura de negros e rancheiros, mestiços e índios, apenas alguns castelhanos [espanhóis]”.

Em 1845, James Buchanan, futuro presidente dos EUA, insistiu que “a nossa raça de homens nunca pode ser submetida à raça mexicana, imbecil e indolente”. O Senador Sam Houston do Texas foi ainda mais longe, dizendo, em 1848, que “os mexicanos não são melhores que os índios, e não vejo razão para, agora, não continuarmos no mesmo caminho  e apoderarmo-nos das suas terras [todo o México]”.

Walt Whitman, famoso jornalista e poeta da América, perguntou: "O que é que tem o México, miserável e ineficiente ... a ver com a grande missão de povoar o Novo Mundo com uma raça nobre?"

Com essas atitudes predominantes, era esperada uma vitória rápida e fácil sobre o México. No entanto, foi mais do que surpreendendo para o super confiante adversário americano, ver como o exército mexicano lutou bravamente. O conflito durou quase dois anos, antes que o peso das forças superiores dos EUA fosse finalmente fosse sentido.

Após a derrota do México, foi imposta uma nova fronteira artificial que permaneceu bastante aberta. Aqueles que desejavam atravessá-la para visitar parentes ou envolver-se no comércio, consideraram-na um assunto simples. Ou seja, até à década de 1990, quando o governo Clinton começou a fortalecer e militarizar a fronteira mexicana.

George W. Bush então expandiu agressivamente as iniciativas de Clinton ao longo da fronteira - sob os pretextos de proteger os EUA de imigrantes ilegais, terroristas ou traficantes de drogas.

Os benefícios territoriais sobre o México foram em grande parte apagados da memória, apesar de terem ocorrido descontraidamente, nos últimos 200 anos. Parece plausível que muitos americanos que vivem no Texas ou na Califórnia, possam não estar cientes de que estão sentados em terra mexicana ocupada.

O escritor e orador americano, Ralph Waldo Emerson, disse: “Realmente não importa por que meios o México é ocupado, pois contribui para a missão de 'civilizar o mundo' e, a longo prazo, será esquecido” .

No entanto, a ocupação não foi esquecida pelos mexicanos. Em abril deste ano (2017), o antigo candidato presidencial do México, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, instou o seu governo a mover uma acção contra os Estados Unidos no Tribunal Internacional de Justiça, para obter reparações e indemnização.

Um advogado que trabalha para Cardenas, disse: “Vamos tornar esta acção num caso forte e difícil, porque estamos com a razão do nosso lado. Eles estiveram em território mexicano, numa invasão militar ”.  Suspeita-se que Ulysses S. Grant estaria a apoiá-los.

Sobre o Autor:

Shane Quinn é natural da República da Irlanda, vive a curta distância da capital, Dublin.

É Bacharel em Jornalismo pelo Griffith College Dublin.  Twitter: @stomquinn  

SHANE QUINN -- America’s forgotten war with Mexico

America’s forgotten war with Mexico

America’s war of expansion over Mexico, backed by newspapers and politicians, has repercussions to the present day.

by SHANE QUINNDecember 3, 2017, 22:52

Reflecting on his life while dying of throat cancer in 1885, the former US President Ulysses S. Grant said the Mexican-American war was, “the most wicked war in history. I thought so at the time, when I was a youngster, only I had not moral courage enough to resign”.

Grant had first-hand experience as he himself fought in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), then as a junior officer in his mid-20s. Less than two decades later, he rose to prominence as one of the most important figures during the American Civil War – as Commanding General his powerful Union Army finally crushed the under-resourced Confederates.

Grant would become a two-term American President (1869-1877), initially taking the job with reluctance. “I have been forced into it in spite of myself”, he wrote to William Sherman, a fellow Union Army general during the civil war.

Despite involvement in various conflicts, the Mexican-American War haunted Grant to the end. “I had a horror of the Mexican War and I have always believed it was on our part most unjust. The wickedness was in the conduct of the war. We had no claim on Mexico. Texas had no claim beyond the Nueces River, and yet we pushed on to the Rio Grande and crossed it. I am always ashamed of my country when I think of that invasion”.

What is striking about Grant’s views today is how remarkably forthright they are. It would prove unthinkable for US presidents in later centuries to express ethical misgivings about the attacks on Korea or Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq – despite the much greater destruction and loss of life.

The defeat of Mexico consolidated US expansion of its territorial size by almost 25%. Texas had initially been annexed from Mexico in 1845, a state almost three times the size of Britain.

US Sponsored Coups and Regime Change, NATO Expansionism, Washington Interferes Globally. Ukraine, Mexico, Korea, Venezuela

US Sponsored Coups and Regime Change, NATO Expansionism, Washington Interferes Globally. Ukraine, Mexico, Korea, Venezuela

From Vietnam to Venezuela, the US consistently interferes in the sovereign affairs of nations. Russia, by contrast, simply wants security on its borders.

By Shane Quinn

Global Research, August 12, 2017

Region: Russia and FSU, USA

Theme: History, Media Disinformation, Militarization and WMD, US NATO War Agenda

On February 2014, a United States-sponsored coup was initiated in the Ukraine in which President Viktor Yanukovych was illegally ousted from power. (1) Over three years later, the putsch has done nothing but plunge the Ukraine, a tortured country plundered throughout modern history (by the West), into another abyss. In a 2015 interview with CNN, then US president Barack Obama openly confessed that “we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine”.

Around 10,000 people have been killed in the time since, with the conflict generating 2.5 million refugees who relocated to Russia. The putsch led to Crimea’s annexation a month after the coup, with a 96% vote in favour of joining the Russian Federation – the majority of Crimeans already considered themselves ethnic Russians. (2)

The new Western-backed government, led by billionaire Petro Poroshenko, has been riddled with corruption and sees meagre support from the Ukrainian people. (3) Just 1.9% fully trust Poroshenko personally, according to an unreported survey conducted in June. (4) Poroshenko’s dismal backing is hardly surprising considering the disastrous economic conditions millions are enduring in the country. What’s more, the 2014 coup has led to an unseemly rise in far-right groups.

In contrast, the Russian president Vladimir Putin has an 87% approval rating according to a poll also in June. (5) This makes Putin “one of the most popular leaders in the world”, with even mainstream networks like CNN reporting on his consistently high approval ratings.

Thinking objectively one can quickly identify the enormous pretense at work here. Picture the Western reaction had Russia performed a key role in, say, toppling governments on the US border, in Canada or Mexico. What would the superpower’s reaction be? To adopt CIA lingo, any efforts to install pro-Russian governments on the US frontiers would be “terminated with extreme prejudice”.

Examining Mexico’s case, it’s worth remembering that the US is illegally sitting on half of its territory. (6) After the Mexican-American war in 1848, the US stripped of Mexico lands that later became known as California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc. This is already taking into account the annexation of Texas from Mexico in 1845. Such huge land-grabs have been wiped from memory, except from the minds of Mexicans that is.

US Planned Nuclear Attacks on Every City in the USSR and China

US Planned Nuclear Attacks on Every City in the USSR and China

Presidents with little military experience are often viewed with mistrust by war chiefs.

By Shane Quinn

Global Research, June 06, 2018

Region: Asia, Russia and FSU

Theme: History, US NATO War Agenda

In-depth Report: Nuclear War

166

In mid-December 1960, a conference was held at Strategic Air Command headquarters near Omaha, Nebraska, to outline America’s nuclear war strategy. During the meeting, plans were revealed whereby Moscow alone would be hit by 40 megatons of nuclear weapons. That is: about 4,000 times the force of the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima, on 6 August 1945.

Forty megatons also exceeded, by up to 30 times over, the full outlay of Allied conventional bombing during the Second World War. US General Thomas Power, commander-in-chief of Strategic Air Command, outlined at this meeting that radioactive fallout from the bombings would kill about 100 million Soviet citizens – roughly four times the total wiped out by the Nazis. The 100 million death toll was from radioactive fallout alone, not taking into account the further millions that would be killed by the bombs’ direct impact and blast radius.

Neighboring China was also to be decimated by American nuclear attacks; in 1949, the US had “lost China to Communism” following a revolution led by Mao Zedong. General Power noted at the conference that “there are about 600 million Chinese in China”. His chart quickly revealed that following planned nuclear attacks on the country, 300 million Chinese would be killed. Almost all the fatalities would constitute civilians.