LARRY ROMANOFF -- Spreading Democracy the American Way List of US-Installed Democracies, Worldwide, 1776-2019

Spreading Democracy the American Way

List of US-Installed Democracies, Worldwide, 1776-2019

By Larry Romanoff

Global Research, November 29, 2019

Region: USA

Theme: History, Intelligence

That’s the entire list. You can see that it’s blank. But how can that be? We all know that the US has freed dozens of nations from their evil and repressive governments, and installed loving democracies where people lived happily ever after, swamped with freedoms and overwhelmed with human rights. We know this because we’ve read and heard it hundreds, or maybe thousands, of times. It’s in all the US history books. We’ve seen it in so many movies and even read it in comic books when we were kids. It must be true. So why is the list empty? How can that be?

Sadly, the list is empty because everything we were told was a lie. It is often said that if you tell a lie five times, most people will believe it; the US as a “defender of democracy” is one of those lies. Almost any American can put together a list of 20 or 30 instances where the US removed a dictatorship, “freed” the people and installed a democracy, and that entire list will be nothing more than a fabricated fairy-tale since even a casual glance at the facts on the ground reveal something quite different. For all the talk about promoting democracy and freedom, there is no instance – NO instance – where the US has ever removed a dictatorship and replaced it with any kind of benevolent government, electoral democracy or otherwise. You may be aware of the statements by Major-General Smedley Butler who claimed that during his 33 years as a US Marine, he functioned simply as “a gangster for capitalism” and that all wars were bankers’ wars. On the topic of the US government installing democracies in the world, Butler himself denied such a thing had ever occurred, and said further, “The U.S. has routinely destroyed democracy throughout the globe while its leaders claimed to be spreading democracy.”

.

But if the US didn’t install “democracy” in all those places, what did they do? Well, while preaching democracy, freedom and human rights at home, the US government was actually running around the world installing dictatorships – about 50, at last count. Not only that, while boasting at home about defending democracy, the CIA and military were actually undermining and destroying functioning democracies and replacing them with dictatorships. Iran is one of the most obvious of these, where the CIA arranged the overthrow of the beloved leader of a perfectly-functioning electoral democracy and installed Shah Reza Pahlavi as one of the most brutal dictators in modern history. In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated:

.

“In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs”.

Yeah. No kidding.

IT -- Manlio Dinucci -- Gli F-35 decollano con ali bipartisan

Gli F-35 decollano con ali bipartisan

Manlio Dinucci

ITALIANO PORTUGUÊS

Lorenzo Guerini (Pd), ministro della Difesa del governo Conte II, ha comunicato alle commissioni parlamentari il passaggio alla fase 2 del programma di acquisto degli F-35 della statunitense Lockheed Martin. Passaggio preparato dal governo Conte I: il vicepremier Salvini (Lega) sottolineava lo scorso marzo che «ogni ipotesi di rallentamento o ravvedimento del programma di acquisto degli F-35 sarebbe un danno per l’economia italiana»; il sottosegretario agli Esteri Di Stefano (M5S) richiedeva una «revisione profonda degli accordi» ma aggiungeva che, «se abbiamo delle commesse da pagare, certamente non passeremo alla storia per aver tradito un accordo fatto con aziende private: c’è un’intera filiera che va rispettata». Lo scorso maggio il governo Conte I autorizzava «la realizzazione e la consegna di 28 caccia F-35 entro il 2022 (i velivoli sinora consegnati sono 13), i cui contratti sono stati completamente finanziati», ovviamente con denaro pubblico.

Lo scorso ottobre, nei colloqui riservati col governo Conte II a Roma, il segretario di stato Usa Mike Pompeo richiedeva all’Italia di sbloccare l’ordine per un ulteriore acquisto. Subito il ministro della Difesa Guerini lo assicurava, in una intervista al Corriere della Sera,  che  «l’Italia è un paese affidabile e credibile rispetto agli impegni internazionali: contribuire al programma F-35 è un segno tangibile della nostra affidabilità». Pochi giorni dopo, nella conferenza stampa a Washington col presidente Mattarella, il presidente Trump annunciava esultante: «L’Italia ha appena acquistato 90 nuovissimi F-35. Il programma va molto bene».

L’Italia conferma quindi l’impegno ad acquistarne 90, con una spesa prevista in circa 14 miliardi di euro. Ad essa  si aggiunge quella inquantificabile per il continuo aggiornamento del software del caccia. L’Italia non è solo acquirente ma fabbricante dell’F-35, quale partner di secondo livello. La Leonardo – la maggiore industria militare italiana, di cui il Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze è il principale azionista con circa il 30% – è fortemente integrata nel complesso militare-industriale Usa. E’ stata per questo scelta per gestire lo stabilimento Faco di Cameri (Piemonte), da cui escono i caccia destinati all’Italia e all’Olanda. La Leonardo produce anche le ali complete per aerei assemblati negli Usa, utilizzando materiali prodotti negli stabilimenti di Foggia (Puglia), Nola (Campania) e Venegono (Lombardia). L’occupazione alla Faco è di circa un migliaio, di cui molti precari, appena un sesto di quella preventivata. Le spese per la realizzazione dello stabilimento Faco e l’acquisto dei caccia sono superiori all’importo dei contratti stipulati da aziende italiane per la produzione dell’F-35. Dal punto di vista economico, contrariamente a quanto sostiene il governo, la partecipazione al programma dell’F-35 è fallimentare per le casse pubbliche.

Il ministro Guerini ha avviato la fase 2 del programma sugli F-35 «senza una valutazione di merito e in assenza di un’informativa, in contrasto con le indicazioni del Parlamento», denuncia il deputato di LeU Palazzotto, chiedendo che il ministro spieghi «su che basi ha autonomamente assunto questa decisione». Nella sua «spiegazione» il ministro non dirà mai la vera ragione per cui ha assunto tale decisione, non autonomamente ma su mandato dell’establishment italiano. La partecipazione al programma dell’F-35 rinsalda l’ancoraggio politico e strategico dell’Italia agli Stati uniti, integrando ancor più il complesso militare industriale italiano nel gigantesco complesso militare-industriale Usa. La decisione di partecipare al programma è quindi una scelta politica, fatta su base bipartisan. Lo conferma il fatto che la Lega, avversaria del Pd, plaude al ministro Pd: «Prendiamo atto con soddisfazione che sugli F-35 il ministro Guerini ha annunciato l’avvio della fase 2», dichiarano unanimi i parlamentari leghisti. Le maggiori forze politiche, in contrasto l’una con l’altra, si ricompattano al seguito degli Stati uniti, «l’alleato privilegiato» che tra poco schiererà in Italia, insieme agli F-35, le nuove bombe nucleari B61-12 progettate in particolare per questi caccia di quinta generazione.

il manifesto, 30 novembre 2019

http://www.natoexit.it/en/home-en/ -- ENGLISH

http://www.natoexit.it/ -- ITALIANO

«DICHIARAZIONE DI FIRENZE»

Per la creazione di un fronte internazionale NATO EXIT in tutti i paesi europei della NATO.

DANSK DEUTSCH ENGLISH ESPAÑOL  FRANÇAIS ITALIANO  NEDERLANDS

PORTUGUÊS ROMÎNA SLOVENSKÝ SVENSKA TÜRKÇE РУССКИЙ

Manlio Dinucci 

Geografo e geopolitologo. Libri più recenti: Laboratorio di geografia, Zanichelli 2014 ; Diario di viaggio, Zanichelli 2017 ; L’arte della guerra / Annali della strategia Usa/Nato 1990-2016, Zambon 2016, Guerra Nucleare. Il Giorno Prima 2017; Diario di guerra Asterios Editores 2018, Premio internazionale per l'analisi geostrategica assegnato il 7 giugno 2019 dal Club dei giornalisti del Messico, A.C.

SP -- Manlio Dinucci -- Italia en primera línea de la «guerra de los drones»

LLEGA A SIGONELLA EL PRIMER DRONE DE LA OTAN

Italia en primera línea de la «guerra de los drones»‎

por Manlio Dinucci

Los militares siempre quieren tener a su disposición la mayor cantidad del armamento ‎existente. Eso sucede con los militares italianos y los drones estadounidenses. ‎También sucede que la mentalidad occidental los lleva a utilizar las tecnologías que ‎están a su alcance, no porque sea necesario usarlas sino sólo porque las tienen. De esa ‎manera, sin ningún tipo de reflexión ni lógica, Italia se ve implicada en las guerras de ‎Estados Unidos en África y en el Medio Oriente ampliado. ‎

RED VOLTAIRE | ROMA (ITALIA) | 28 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2019 

FRANÇAIS  ITALIANO  PORTUGUÊS 

En la Naval Air Station Sigonella, la base que Estados Unidos y la OTAN tienen en la isla italiana ‎de Sicilia, aterrizó, después de 22 horas de vuelo desde la base aérea de Palmdale, en California, ‎el primer drone del sistema AGS (Alliance Ground Surveillance) de la OTAN. Este aparato es una versión ‎mejorada del drone estadounidense Global Hawk. Desde Sigonella, que será en lo adelante su ‎principal base operativa, este drone y otros 4 aparatos similares permitirán “vigilar” –léase ‎“espiar”– vastas extensiones terrestres y marítimas, desde el Mediterráneo hasta el Mar ‎del Norte. ‎

NL -- Manlio Dinucci --“DE KUNST VAN DE OORLOG” Italië in de "Antiterroristische Coalitie"

 

“DE KUNST VAN DE OORLOG”

Italië in de "Antiterroristische Coalitie"

door Manlio Dinucci

 ENGLISH FRANÇAIS ITALIANO NEDERLANDS PORTUGUÊS 

ROMÎNA SPANISH TÜRKÇE

Toen hij de vijf in Irak gewonde soldaten  in Rome verwelkomde, verklaarde minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Luigi Di Maio dat "de Italiaanse staat zich niet zal terugtrekken in het licht van de terroristische dreiging en met alle kracht zal reageren tegen degenen die terreur verspreiden". Hij vloog vervolgens naar Washington om deel te nemen aan een beperkte groep van de "Global Coalition against Daesh", die onder Amerikaans bevel Turkije, Saoedi-Arabië, Qatar, Jordanië en andere landen omvat die vroeger Daesh/Isis en andere soortgelijke terroristische formaties steunden door hen te voorzien van wapens en opleiding (zoals we hier hebben gedocumenteerd).

De Coalitie - waaronder de NAVO, de Europese Unie, de Arabische Liga, de Gemeenschap van Sahel-Saharaanse Staten (CEN-SAD) en Interpol, plus 76 afzonderlijke staten - beweert in haar communiqué van 14 november "Irak en Noord-Oriëntaal Syrië te hebben bevrijd van de controle over Daesh/Isis", hoewel het duidelijk is dat de strijdkrachten van de Coalitie Daesh/Isis met opzet de vrije hand hadden gelaten [1].

Deze terroristische formatie en enkele andere werden pas verslagen toen Rusland militair tussenbeide kwam om de Syrische regeringstroepen te steunen. De coalitie beweert ook dat ze "20 miljard dollar aan humanitaire hulp heeft verstrekt voor de stabilisatie van de Iraakse en Syrische bevolking, en meer dan 220.000 leden van de veiligheidstroepen heeft opgeleid en uitgerust om de lokale gemeenschappen te stabiliseren". Het doel van deze "hulp" is in werkelijkheid niet de stabilisatie, maar de voortdurende destabilisatie van Irak en Syrië, door gebruik te maken van de materiële steun die vooral door de verschillende componenten van het Koerdische onafhankelijkheidsstreven werd geboden en die tot doel zou hebben de nationale staten te vernietigen en hun grondgebied en hun energiebronnen te controleren.

In het kader van deze strategie is Italië, gedefinieerd als "een van de grootste bijdragers van de Coalitie", in Irak voornamelijk betrokken bij de opleiding van de "Koerdische Veiligheidstroepen" (Peshmerga), met name bij het gebruik van antitankwapens, mortieren en geschut, en het gebruik van precisiegeweren in speciale opleidingscursussen voor scherpschutters. Momenteel zijn er ongeveer 1.100 Italiaanse soldaten actief in Irak, verdeeld over verschillende detachementen in verschillende gebieden, voorzien van meer dan 300 landvoertuigen en 12 vliegtuigen, voor een bedrag van 166 miljoen euro in 2019. Naast de eenheid in Irak is er in Koeweït een Italiaanse luchtdivisie gevestigd, met 4 Typhoon gevechtsbommenwerpers, 3 drones en een tankervliegtuig om tijdens de vlucht te tanken.

Naar alle waarschijnlijkheid nemen de Italiaanse special forces, tot wie de vijf gewonde soldaten behoorden, deel aan gevechtsmissies, ook al is hun officiële missie alleen maar training. Het gebruik van speciale eenheden is natuurlijk geheim. Dit wordt momenteel nog meer het geval omdat hun commandocentrum, de Comfose, is overgebracht naar de Folgore-kazerne in Pisa, vlak naast het Camp Darby gebied, het grootste Amerikaanse arsenaal buiten het moederland van de Verenigde Staten, waar ook trainingsactiviteiten plaatsvinden.

In de Coalitie neemt Italië ook de taak op zich om samen met Saoedi-Arabië en de Verenigde Staten leiding te geven aan de "Finacial Group of Opposition to Daesh". Met andere woorden, degenen die de bewapening van de troepen van Isis en andere terroristische formaties hebben gefinancierd en georganiseerd [2]. Aangemoedigd door deze verdiensten heeft de minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Di Maio een voorstel gedaan, dat onmiddellijk werd aanvaard, dat Italië de zetel van de plenaire vergadering van de Coalitie in 2020 zou kunnen zijn. Op die manier zou Italië ook de eer hebben om bepaalde onvermoeibare tegenstanders van het terrorisme zoals Saoedi-Arabië te mogen verwelkomen, dat, na Daesh gefinancierd te hebben, nu zijn oliedollars uitgeeft om zijn terroristische oorlog in Jemen te financieren.

il manifesto, 19 November 2019

Vertaling: Martien

 [1] « Réunion ministérielle de la Coalition internationale contre Daech »,  Voltaire Network, 14 November 2019.

[2] « Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A. », par C. J. Chivers and Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, March 14, 2013. « Des milliards de dollars d’armes contre la Syrie », by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 18 July 2017.

George Galloway -- Justice blind or blinded by titles? A tale of Prince Andrew and Julian Assange

Home  Op-ed

Justice blind orblinded by titles? A tale of Prince Andrew and Julian Assange

George Galloway

was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV and radio shows (including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator.

26 Nov, 2019 17:40 / Updated 2 days ago

Get short URL

©  AFP / Lillian SUWANRUMPHA; REUTERS/Henry Nicholls

Follow RT 

The grand old Duke of York sleeps tonight on a feather pillow in a royal palace. Julian Assange, the publisher of the century sleeps in the hell of Belmarsh Prison, Britain’s own Guantanamo Bay.

The Duke of York lied about the length duration and nature of his relationship with the presumed deceased child-sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Julian Assange told the truth about the high crimes and misdemeanours of the rich and powerful during times of war and peace.

The FBI need to speak to the Queen’s favorite son, but no power on earth will be deployed to make him testify about what he might have seen, or even have participated in, at the townhouse in Manhattan, a Sodom and Gomorrah of our times.

The same US Justice system has caused the cruel incarceration of Assange and his Kafkaesque entrapment in an extradition saga which may last for years - if he doesn’t die before it is over as no less than 60 doctors have recently warned he may well do.

The US-UK extradition arrangements may be the most unequal treaty ever concluded by Her Majesty’s ministers. In this case the former Blair government Home Secretary David Blunkett, a blind man who could, nonetheless, see exactly what he was doing.

In essence extradition from Britain to the US became virtually on request without the slightest need to show just cause. But not vice versa. It would be easier to pull a camel through the eye of a needle than for Britain to extradite a US citizen to face justice in the UK.

I was a member of the British Parliament at the time this treaty was signed. Not that this mattered a jot or tittle. The Treaty was signed during the Summer Recess when no Parliament was sitting and through the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.

Only when it was already in operation was I even able to oppose the extradition of its first victims - alleged City of London financial fraudsters, as well as a fitted-up “terrorist” London man Babar Ahmad.

Under the old extradition rules neither case could have satisfied the previous requirement to produce prima facia evidence sufficient to persuade a British judge. Under the new Treaty it was easy peasy lemon squeezy. And off they went.

Prince Andrew will face no such ordeal albeit now banished from Royal Circles and effectively reduced to the ranks, his epaulettes ripped off his glittering array of obscure medals turned to scrap metal on his tunic. 

Although accused of sexual abuse of a teenager and with an admitted close relationship to the alleged procurer of underage female victims, Ghislaine Maxwell, in whose London home it is alleged one of the sexual encounters took place - the US will never require the Prince to give evidence and the UK will never offer him up.

Assange, who was falsely accused of rape, has spent virtually the last decade locked up in one form or other of incarceration. And faces up to 175 years of prison time, if successfully extradited.

It is a tale of two cities - Buckingham Palace and Belmarsh Maximum Security Prison.

A tale of two individuals - one now a proven liar and one a well attested truth-teller.

A tale of two fates. The Prince who became a moral pauper, the other an impecunious journalist who became a moral giant.

It is a tale of our times.

Prince Andrew’s disastrous Epstein denial poses more questions than answers (VIDEO)

‘Beast of Buckingham Palace’ children’s book released amid Prince Andrew scandal leaves Twitter smirking

Assange treated as terrorist by UK, it's ‘almost murder by state’, doctors warn WikiLeaks founder may die in jail

Empire, Intervention, and the Intentional Sacrifice of U.S. Soldiers

by Jacob G. Hornberger

November 29, 2019

The march of death. Taken during the March of Death from Bataan to Cabana Tuan prison camp. May 1942. (Defense depart., USMC 114538, # 127-GR-111-114538, National Archives).

On April 9, 1942, 12,000 U.S. troops paid the price of U.S. empire and intervention when they surrendered to Japanese forces at Bataan, Philippines. During the resulting “Bataan death march,” 600 of them died, and then another 1,000 died after they were transported to Japanese POW camps.

The Constitution called into existence a limited-government republic. No Pentagon, no CIA, and no NSA. Just a relatively small military force. No foreign military empire, no foreign colonies, and no U.S. military bases in foreign countries. That system lasted for more than a century.

By the same token, the original foreign policy of the United States was one of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. No coups, foreign wars of aggression, foreign aid, state-sponsored assassinations, alliances with foreign regimes, or regime-change operations. That system too lasted about a century.

Notwithstanding the horrors of slavery, America’s limited-government structure and its non-imperialist, non-interventionist foreign policy were among the factors that led to the greatest and longest surge  in liberty, peace, prosperity, and standards of living in history.

The Spanish American War

The turn toward empire and intervention began with the Spanish American War, a watershed event that would lead to those 12,000 U.S. troops surrendering to Japanese forces almost 45 years later. The argument was that in order to be a great nation, America needed to acquire overseas colonies, just like the British and Spanish Empires.

During the Spanish-American War, Filipinos were fighting for independence from Spain. The U.S. government intervened in the conflict, with the ostensible aim of helping the Filipinos win their independence. It was a lie, one that the Filipinos discovered soon after Spain capitulated. In fact, the real aim of U.S. officials was simply to replace Spanish rule with U.S rule.

The Filipinos decided to keep fighting, this time for independence from the United States. U.S. forces brutally put down the revolt, killing and torturing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos in the process. After the U.S. conquest of the Philippines, U.S. officials took military control over the islands, constructed many military bases, and stationed thousands of U.S. troops there.

That’s why those 12,000 U.S. troops were there when Japan attacked the islands. The turn toward empire and intervention in 1898 put U.S. forces there and had kept them there for more than four decades of U.S. colonial rule.

World War I

The Spanish American War was followed by U.S. intervention into World War I. There had been no invasion of the United States. Nonetheless, President Wilson decided that he would intervene in the war with two aims: (1) to put a permanent stop to European wars by defeating Germany decisively; and (2) making the world “safe for democracy.” To accomplish is war aims, Wilson had to conscript (i.e, force) American men into fighting his war.

It was a disaster, and the American people knew it. More than 50,000 American men were killed in combat, and for nothing. Despite the total victory achieved against Germany, within a short time Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party rose to power in Germany, and war clouds were forming over Europe once again. So much for Wilson’s “war to end all wars” and to “make the world safe for democracy.”

World War II

Not surprisingly, the American people were overwhelmingly dead-set against U.S. involvement in another European war. President Franklin Roosevelt said he was too, as reflected by his statement to the American people during his 1940 presidential campaign, “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”

It was a lie. In fact, Roosevelt was secretly trying to do everything he could to embroil the United States in the war.

Prof Michel Chossudovsky --Global Warming and the Ozone Layer: What’s More Dangerous, CO2 or Nuclear War?

Global Warming and the Ozone Layer: What’s More Dangerous, CO2 or Nuclear War?

An Overview

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, November 27, 2019

Global Research

Theme: Environment, Global Economy, Militarization and WMD, Oil and Energy, Science and Medicine

First published in September 2019

#FridaysForFuture:

4500 climate strikes in over 100 countries. Several million protesters demand that governments around the World  “take action” on the devastating environmental impacts of climate change.

Many of the climate activists point to the destructive impacts of global capitalism on their lives. 

“Capitalism = death (or extinction)”.

“Cancel Capitalism.”

People’s lives are destroyed. Politicians are coopted by the corporate giants including Big Oil. The economic, environmental and social structures are undermined. The outcome is a process of Worldwide impoverishment. 

The oil giants were indelibly under fire. In New York City, climate activists confronted “Big Oil”: 

“ExxonKnew: Make Them Pay” outside a meeting of fossil fuel CEOs and government representatives at the Morgan Library and Museum, just blocks away from the U.N. Climate Summit in New York. 

Who is Funding the Protest Movement

“Exxon: Make Them Pay”?

The unspoken truth is that Big Oil funds the campaign against Big Oil. Sounds contradictory?

Climate activists have been lied to.

The Climate Movement (New Green Deal) is funded by major charities and corporate foundations including the National Endowment for Democracy, Soros Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Brothers Trust, Shell Foundation, BP, Goldman Sachs, among others.

Whereas “Big Oil” is held responsible for the devastating impacts of the fossil fuel industry, the architect of Big Oil, namely the Rockefeller family is the major protagonist of the Green New Deal:

“Beginning in the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became leading advocates of the global warming agenda. … In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists, citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute published in 2016).

Debate on the world’s climate is of crucial importance.

But who controls that debate? Major capitalist foundations ultimately call the shots?

There is an obvious contradictory relationship. The protest movement is funded by corporate foundations.

According to William Engdahl, the New Green Deal is a multibillion “economic project”: