Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Manifest Destiny

Notes and tidbits posted on FB and Twitter. Part 116

Note 1: I take notes of books I read and comment on events and edit sentences that fit my style. The page is long and growing like crazy, and the sections I post contains months-old events that are worth refreshing your memory.

Bad practices. I love justice and demand justice: If I am practically the only one who patronize a library every day to read for 3 hours, and if I was the first to request reading a new batch of books, I get upset when the books are stowed in a bag on the excuse that a few readers “reserved them”: Readers who show up once a month to borrow a few books.

Last evening, JP Jbara celebrated his birthday in the new large tent, set up for the Petanques players in Cornet Chehwan (Metn, lebanon) during the cold season. The event was a success and many outside players mingled and had drinks. JP and four others players cut the cake, including Ceza, Shadiya and JP of Beit Chabab. Lena catered for her favorite  assortment of bouche’ pizza.

I have been hearing recriminations among the Petanque players in Kornet Chehwan. Apparently, a few players invested themselves (appointed) as favorite and privileged to side-track and antagonize other players. Fact is these Bullies are new players and Not at a par for the game. Two days later, the condition was reformed with a board where a new comer registers his name and given priority.

If most low lands were under water 12,000 years ago, it does Not follow that people in high altitudes managed to create a civilization. Low altitude “City-States” of sedentary agriculture systems, along rivers, instituted the administration of cities, promoted trade and erected forms of viable civilization and culture: writing, accounting, theology, sciences…

Many thousands years later, as high altitude people learned the skills of low altitude civilization, they invaded them and established Kingdoms. I have in mind Assyria in Mosul and current Kurdistan, and Hittite in the Turkish plateau.

If you are a neighboring State to China, you can be assured that USA will Not attempt any pre-emptive war there. China will Not allow it.

Following USA strategy of “Manifest Destiny” in central and Latin America: Same dicta for China “all my neighboring countries are off-limit to foreign interventions”

By working the land, you and your family members should come to own it. As long as the land is worked upon. 

What this “Passive” Silent Majority wants?  They  contributed to the Crimes by encouraging their State to commit mass indignities, humiliation and genocide

The majority of these Passive and Silent “citizens” wants opportunities to publicly acknowledge (trials) their tacit participation in crimes committed in their names.

The activities in Saudi Kingdom are implying an internal palace coup d’etat by families of late king Abdullah.

Lebanon former Saad Hariri PM was forced to resign to remove any diplomatic immunity and be submitted to investigation  by Saudi Kingdom

If there were communication interference on Saad Hariri by USA/Israel, it is Not probably to assassinate him as they did to his father Rafic in 2005, but to discover any communications with the comploters in Saudi Kingdom

This cycle of internal palace coups occurs occasionally. The first coup was performed on Saud ibn Abdul Azir (second monarch) who removed his brothers from power and placed his sons in key positions and opened up Saudi Kingdom to a more liberal system.

Louis Brendise was US supreme Court Justice in 1915 and the chief of World Zionist Organization. He was very close to President Woodrow Wilson. From 1915 to 1917, they pressured England to support and ratify an understanding for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. Among other economic and financial reasons for participating in WWI, this Jewish question was a major demand. Over 250,000 US soldiers died for this insane new colonization in the Near-East.

I counted 160 books in one room in the library, displayed on tables and window sells. I read 70 of them. 10 more are worth communicating my notes and comments. It would be great if new batches of books are thus displayed to peruse and select from.

If Saad Hariri returns to Lebanon on Thursday, that implies the investigations didn’t find sufficient evidence to links with comploters. Otherwise. Better he Not return to Lebanon and save us another round of assassinations.

Trump akal 7amraneh min 3ashiret Selman

Metl al 3aada, Al akwa wa al moukaawamat bet3abbi al faraagh. Elleh zarou Saudi Kingdom mou2akharran khesro

Saad ma elo 7az aw 7azwat 3ind al Amercani: bi ser3at youkilounahou 3ala ahwan sabeel

Hal ziyarat Lebanon President Aoun lel Kuwait e7da asbaab estikalat Saad? Ma mo7tawa hal ziyarat?

Saar mojtama3na mozri: badna meen ye tarjem she3r Omar Ibn Rabi3a ila loghat okhra 7ata nafham wa natafaaham

Migration is a fundamental human right:

Mankind basic acquired law since his inception

I believe in a human right to migration, as fundamental as the right to freedom of expression, or freedom from discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, religion or sexuality.

I have come by this belief by migrating myself. (I’m inclined to prefer the terms migrant and migration to immigrant and immigration: the latter two seem to privilege the country of arrival; every immigrant is also an emigrant, and migrant encompasses both.)

Mohsin Hamid:

why migration is a fundamental human right

Born in Pakistan and educated in the US, Mohsin Hamid has made a home in the UK. He explains why he longs for a world without borders

Mohsin Hamid

Mohsin Hamid in Lahore, Pakistan.

I was born in Pakistan. And I live in Pakistan. But when I was three I moved with my parents to Silicon Valley in California. I returned to Pakistan when I was nine for a decade, then spent most of my 20s on America’s east coast and most of my 30s in London.

I possess a British passport and once possessed an American green card.

My life has come full circle, geographically speaking. Twice.

Most of my education has been in the American system. I suspect this has contributed to my discomfort with a great deal of what I see practised around me in Pakistan.

I have friends who are non-Muslim; non-Muslims are legally persecuted here.

I have friends who are gay; homosexuality is legally proscribed here.

An African friend once told me after visiting that Pakistan was among the most blatantly racist places he had ever been.

Pakistani laws discriminate against women.

Pakistani courts fail to deliver any semblance of due process. Pakistani presidents are frequently unelected generals. My largely American-educated self is continually brimming with disappointment.

Yet my largely American-educated self is profoundly disappointed by America, too.

This is partly because the US’s bellicose excesses in foreign policy become more visible the closer you are to where American bombs are hitting the ground. But it is also because I studied American history with American teachers and American law with American professors.

From them I learned about manifest destiny, the notion that Americans were destined to migrate west until they had settled the entire continent; about the melting pot, uniting people of all races, ethnicities and creeds into one nation; about a country of immigrants, with this poem by Emma Lazarus inscribed at the base of its Statue of Liberty:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon- hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest- tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Migration and equality are intertwined at the heart of the US’s story of itself.

As the vast migration to America continued, this story goes, the equality offered by America grew. So it was that the US Declaration of Independence could declare only “that all men are created equal”, but a century and a half later, women too would be granted the vote.

So it was that the US Constitution could openly tolerate slavery, but within one century slavery would be outlawed – and within a second some of slavery’s most toxic residues would be partially mitigated by the famed civil rights movement of the 1960s, the decade before my birth.

And yet, in my lifetime, as someone who has often lived in America, I could see, more and more, a new category of person there, neither slave nor free.

They were everywhere and they numbered in their millions: illegal immigrants.

How, I wondered, was such a thing possible? Surely all Americans were immigrants. Yet legally, it now seemed, not all immigrants were Americans, and as the caste of “illegals” swelled in the closing years of the 20th century and initial years of the 21st, the overall inequality of American society began to grow, too.

If the US distances itself from the human right of migration, the tenor of the dominant story of America changes.

For America’s story is also, frighteningly, a story about the genocide of the pre-Columbian population, a story about the importation of disenfranchised underclasses, initially from Africa and more recently from Latin America, and a story about the quest for unrivalled economic and military dominance around the world.

Such a revised story sits uncomfortably with those equality aspiring institutions that America already has.

This has inevitably led to a crisis. And this crisis helps explain why America is flailing today: America has become incoherent.

An America that denies the human right of migration can no longer be the America it imagines itself to be, because it can no longer champion equality. It can no longer claim to be exceptional. It can no longer believe in being its own best self.

America’s greatest hope lies where it always has: with the homeless, tempest-tossed to that golden door.

And migration is the half-forgotten core of Britishness as well. I migrated to the UK 13 years ago, not expecting to remain long. I thought I would experience London for a year, then return to New York.

But I found London remarkably open to migrants, to dissent, to creativity. I stayed for the better part of a decade, becoming a naturalised citizen in the process. I made a home for myself in Britain, wrote a novel there, worked in business there, got married there, had a child there.

Anti-migrant sentiment was always present, but for a while in the early noughties it seemed it was waning, that a new, more cosmopolitan Britain was being born.

Alas, times have changed.

Sovereignty seems to be the rage in Britain these days. But this sovereignty, at its heart, is imagined not merely as more rights for people in Britain, but as more rights for those whose ancestors have been in Britain longer.

In nativist-sovereign Britain, the plumber of Bulgarian citizenship is a plausible candidate for expulsion. In nativist-sovereign Britain, the British woman with Bangladeshi parents is a problem to be solved.

Surely the dangers of such an outlook are self-evident.

What becomes of Northern Ireland under such a concept of sovereignty?

What becomes of Scotland, which has been ruled from London for less time than England has?

What of the migrant-peopled dominions of Gibraltar and the Falklands?

Treating nativist sovereignty as a virtue, and migration as a crime, threatens to make the United Kingdom dysfunctional.

For Britain, too, is a land of migration, indeed of extreme migration. Without migration, the human population of these and all other islands would be zero.

Without migration, the English language would not exist.

There would be no Commonwealth without migration – no Canada, no Australia, no New Zealand – for without migration there would have been no empire.

And without the British empire there would be precious little of the accumulated wealth and knowledge underpinning the industries on which the British economy is now based.

But as a British person who reads the press of my own (British) country, I encounter a sadly predictable narrative. It sums up the last couple centuries of world history as follows. When a Briton goes abroad, he or she is a hero. When someone else tries to come to Britain, he or she is a villain.

It is not a take on history that suggests future greatness. It suggests instead a retreat into fear and insularity. It deserves more robust challenges than it has received thus far.

The deepest threat Britain faces comes not from migration. It comes from the relentless transfer of wealth and opportunity from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, a transfer masked and rendered temporarily palatable by the chest-thumping of resurgent nationalism and the paper gains of credit-fuelled property prices.

Britain and America are by no means unique in denying the human right to migration. All wealthy democracies do much the same. China and some other countries even restrict the migration of their citizens within their own borders.

This problem must be addressed. The scale of migration we will see in the coming centuries is likely to dwarf what has come before. Climate change, disease, state failure, wars: all these will push hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, to leave one country for another.

If we do not recognise their right to move, we will be attempting to build an apartheid planet where our passports will be our castes, and where obedience will be enforceable only through ever-increasing uses of force.

There is another way. We can recognise the human right to migration. We can recognise that we are ourselves, all of us, doubly migrants. We are migrants historically: our ancestors came from somewhere else, and originated, long ago, in the same spot in Africa.

And we are migrants personally: life is the experience of moving through time, of abandoning each present moment for the next, of temporal migration.

Acknowledging this, we can accept that we have no right to forbid or stigmatise migration. We have only the power to try to do so. And we ought to endeavour to use that power as little as we can manage, less and less over time, for we are using it to deny the human rights of others.

It is we, those who stop migration, who are the criminals, not those who are migrants.

And slowly, at a pace that does not terrify us, but whose direction is clear, we must gradually let go, and allow things to change. Only in doing so can we hope to build a world in accordance with the values we claim to believe in – liberty, equality, democracy – and wash clean the taste of hypocrisy that burns so bitter in so many of our mouths.

I imagine that centuries hence, when people are finally free to move as they please around the planet Earth, they will look back at this moment and wonder, just as we wonder about those who kept slaves, how people who seemed so modern could do such things to their fellow human beings, caging them like animals – merely for wanting to wander, as our species always has and always will.

Mohsin Hamid’s Discontent and Its Civilizations: Dispatches from Lahore, New York and London is published by Hamish Hamilton on Thursday at £16.99.

“Brief history of U.S. imperialism…”: Still believe the government is telling the truth…

imperialismthe policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation, especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly: the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence.

Sydney Schanberg wrote: “We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that, this time around, the government is telling us the truth.” 

 posted on Oct.11, 2012:

“For some, the Iraq invasion in 2003 seems unprecedented, as if nothing of the sort had ever happened before.

Nearly a decade later, it happened again with Libya in 2011. In both cases, Americans were told there was an imminent threat, and military action must be taken to stop it. In both cases, the ‘threat’ was nothing more than fabrication (Iraq) and exaggeration (Libya).

These events are often analyzed separately, associated with the individual administrations in charge at the time. One might see the Iraq War as belonging to the “Bush Administration”, and the Libya War as belonging to the “Obama Administration”.

If you examines all of the U.S. interventions, it becomes clear that the problem is not one of certain administrations or individuals, but a manipulative system, which has dominated American foreign policy for decades.

 

4,000 U.S. troops occupy Corpus Christi, Texas; 1846 1846, Mexico: U.S. President Polk leads a national sentiment of manifest destiny“, designed to expand federal rule from the east to west coast, including territory already occupied by natives. Polk offers to buy land from Mexico, but Mexico refuses.

Texas, owned by Mexico, seeks U.S. residents to “settle” there and “help grow the population”. However, these “settlers” eventually grow dissatisfied with Mexican rule and form a rebellion, thus beginning the Mexican-American War.

As a result, the U.S. gains control of Colorado, Arizona, California, Utah, Nevada, Wyoming and New Mexico.

1853, Japan: Commodore Matthew Perry of the U.S. Navy sails into Tokyo Harbor aboard the frigate “Susquehanna”, forcing Japan to sign a treaty permitting trade, and the opening of Japanese ports to U.S. merchant ships.

1893, Hawaii: Hawaii has a large population of American sugar cane planters, whalers, and missionaries. In 1887, a U.S. base at Pearl Harbor is constructed. When King David Kalakaua dies in 1891, his sister Lydia Paki Kamekeha Liliuokalani takes the throne and tries to restore Hawaii’s monarchy to absolute power.

However, Hawaii Supreme Court justice Sanford Dole stages a bloodless coup backed by the U.S. military on January 19, 1893 and dethrones the Queen, forcing her to plead with U.S. President Grover Cleveland for reinstatement.

By 1895, the Queen abdicates the throne. President William McKinley’s administration annexed Hawaii, giving the U.S. control over coaling stations in the Pacific. 

1898, Cuba: The U.S. blames Spain for destroying the USS Maine, despite evidence that the explosion which caused the sinking came from an internal – not external – source. As a result of the war, Cuba assumes independence, Puerto Rico becomes an American possession.  The U.S. acquires from Spain, Guam and the Philippines. 

1899, Philippines: Through the Treaty of Paris (1898), Spain gives control of the Philippines to the United States for $20 million. The Filipino-American War begins shortly after.

Known in U.S. history books as the “Philippine Insurrection“, it was America’s first true overseas war, lasting from 1898 to 1902.

In those 3 years, as many as 70,000 Americans die, along with close to 2 million Filipinos.

(The US wanted to plant rubber trees in order to circumvent the monopoly of the British Empire that was hiking prices of rubber in order to repay its loans…) 

1899, Somoa: Rivalries between French, British, German, and American forces, all valuing Pago Pago Harbor as a refueling station for coal-fired shipping and whaling, leads to the partitioning of Samoa.
The last chief of Somoa before U.S. rule, the Tui Manu’a Elisala, is forced to sign a deed of cession following a series of U.S. naval trials. 
1903, Panama: Seeking a canal through Panama — a province of Colombia — the U.S. attempts negotiations and payments, all of which fail. President Roosevelt is outraged, stating that “we may have to give a lesson to these jack rabbits“.

Stockholders of the New Panama Canal Company arrange a “revolution” in Panama and fund the rebels, assisted by the U.S. Navy. Shortly after, Panama declares its independence from Colombia. 

1906, Cuba: The United States assumes temporary military control of Cuba under the Platt Amendment, following the reelection of an American puppet government which caused a nationalist uprising.

Two years later, the U.S. builds a naval base at Guantanamo Bay and claims rights to it in perpetuity. 

1910, Nicaragua: The U.S. seeks to establish a canal through Nicaragua, but instead chooses Panama. When Nicaraguan President José Santos Zelaya solicits funds to build a second inter-oceanic canal for Germany and Japan, Washington turns against him.

After Zelaya’s government executes two Americans for aiding anti-government rebels, Washington breaks diplomatic relations, threatens naval intervention, and forces Zelaya into exile. 

1914, Mexico: Mexican officials detain several drunken U.S. Marines from the U.S.S. Dolphin, which is docked in the port of Tampico, Mexico, after they accidentally enter a restricted area. The Mexican government quickly releases them, and issues an apology.

Regardless of the regret expressed by Mexican President Victor Huerta, U.S. Admiral Henry T. Mayo demands that Mexican troops salute an American flag as a sign of contrition. President Huerta refuses the salute; three days later, President Wilson orders American warships to Tampico Bay.

Wilson insists that his anger is not directed at the Mexican people, but at Huerta, “and those who adhere to him” because he refused to salute the American flag as an official apology.

By the end of 1914, U.S. Marines had seized Tampico, forced an apology from Huerta, and demanded his resignation from power.

Tampico, Mexico was considered the world’s largest oil port in 1901. Some of the richest oil fields were discovered within a 100-mile radius of the port between 1914-1918.

1914, Europe: United States claims to be neutral as Germany, France, and Britain engage in conflict. U.S. banks and weapons manufacturers continue selling to France and Britain, leading to the German sinking of the ship, Lusitania, and eventual U.S. entry to World War 1.

1917, Russia: Woodrow Wilson funds the “White” side of the Russian civil war. In the summer of 1918, he authorizes a naval blockade of the Soviet Union to help stop the Russian Revolution. American forces penetrate westward from Vladivostok to Lake Baikal, supporting Czech and White Russian forces.

The White Russian forces disintegrate by 1920, and this intervention helps fuel anti-western sentiments throughout Russia during the Cold War years. 

1924, Honduras: Civil war breaks out after liberal president Rafael Lopez Gutierrez establishes a dictatorship. The U.S. lands Marines in the country to “protect its interests”. Gutierrez is killed in March, and the revolution ends in May.

1925, Mexico: The U.S. and Mexico narrowly avoid war after Mexico threatens U.S. oil contracts.

1945, Japan: The United States becomes the first country to use atomic weapons in warfarekilling thousands of Japanese civilians in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946 had concluded:

“air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that … Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” 

 (The bomb was dropped to pressure Japan to a quicker surrender because Russia army had already entered Korea and was about to occupied all of Korea from the Japanese forces…)

1950, Korea: Without the approval of Congress, President Harry Truman sends troops to fight in Korea, asserting an inherent right to do so as Commander-in-Chief.

The Korean War ends three years later, leaving behind 33,600 American casualties, 16,000 UN-allied, 415,000 South Korean, 520,000 North Korean, and an estimated 900,000 Chinese.

1953, Iran: British intelligence agencies join with the C.I.A. to overthrow the Iranian government out of fears it will nationalize oil production. (Oil production was nationalized and the Shah had fled to exile)
1954, Guatemala: Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, the democratically-elected President of Guatemala, issues land reforms which threaten the interests of U.S.-based United Fruit Company. C.I.A. Director Allen Dules, along with his brother, both have stakes in the company. United Fruit Company heavily lobbies the U.S. government to take action.
The C.I.A. begins training rebels, and sets up a radio station across the border, led by fake rebels, to instigate a revolution. Eventually, the Guatemalan President is sent into exile. 

1961, Cuba: US mercenaries depart Nicaragua and invade Playa Girón, Cuba. They suffer a historical defeat known as the “Bay of Pigs.”

 
1961, Iraq: Abdel Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq, threatens western oil interests, causing the U.S. and Britain to begin arming Kurdish rebels in the country.

In 1963, Kassem is forced out of power, put on trial, and eventually shot to death. By 1968, Saddam Hussein takes power in the country, backed by the C.I.A.

1964, Vietnam: The USS Maddox is gathering intelligence off the coast of North Vietnam when a group of North Vietnamese torpedo boats approach the ship. The Maddox opens fire, the North Vietnamese respond with torpedoes, but they are eventually driven away. The exchange prompts the US government and news media to report that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an “unprovoked attack” against the Maddox while it was on a “routine patrol“.

Two days later, Captain John J. Herrick of the USS Maddox sees two “mysterious dots” on his radar screen, determines they are torpedo boats, and sends an emergency cable to headquarters in Honolulu reporting that the ship is under attack.

Shortly after, Herrick sends another cable: “Freak weather effects on radar and over eager sonar men … No actual visual sightings by Maddox. Suggest complete evaluation before any further action taken.”

Less than an hour later, Herrick sends a third cable, saying he is now uncertain of what had happened; however, by this time, President Johnson is already announcing a major military escalation in Vietnam.

By the end of the Vietnam War, millions of Vietnamese civilians have perished, along with more than 50,000 U.S. soldiers.

1970, Cambodia: President Richard Nixon announces that U.S. troops are invading Cambodia, the country west of Vietnam through which the North Vietnamese are allegedly supplying their troops. For more than a year prior to the announcement, the U.S. had been conducting bombing raids in the country. 

1982, Iraq: U.S. backs Iraq against Iran, supplying Saddam Hussein with intelligence, diplomatic aid, and chemical weapons (which would later be used to massacre innocent people).

1985, Nicaragua: . Congress authorizes $38 million over two years in “non-military” aid to Nicaragua’s Contras. 

1986, Libya: Islamic militants bomb a Berlin discotheque, killing two American soldiers. The White House uses this opportunity to retaliate, and President Reagan authorizes the bombing of Libya without the authorization of Congress. At least 100 civilians are killed.

One year prior, the National Security Council had discussed a plan to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi using exiles in a coup, although the idea was eventually abandoned. 

1990, Iraq: In August, U.S. fighter jets, aircraft carriers, battleships, and half a million American troops are deployed to Saudi Arabia to defend against a possible attack from Iraq. Between its own oil fields, and those of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, western governments allegedly fear Iraq could gain control over the majority of the world’s oil reserves.

Dick Cheney secures the U.S.-Saudi occupation agreement, ensuring there will be no set withdrawal date from Saudi Arabia, thereby allowing U.S. forces to remain. 

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein eventually annexes Kuwait, triggering the first Iraq War.Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire province of Basra, and included much of modern-day Iraq. Up until that point, Iraq had not recognized Kuwait’s sovereignty, and the border between Iraq and Kuwait had never been clearly defined.The US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, claims that when she gave Iraq indications that the US would not oppose an invasion of Kuwait, she did not expect Iraq to take “all of Kuwait“.

1999, Yugoslavia: U.S.-NATO bombs drop over the country allegedly to prevent a “massacre”, though this claim is challenged. More than 2,000 civilians are killed.

A street in Belgrade destroyed by NATO bombs

There are indications that basic infrastructure is deliberately targeted during this campaign. For example, a statement by Lt. Gen. Michael Short, US Air Force, quoted in the Washington Post, May 1999, reads:

“If you wake up in the morning and you have no power to your house and no gas to your stove and the bridge you take to work is down and will be lying in the Danube for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, ‘Hey, Slobo, what’s this all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?’ And at some point, you make the transition from applauding Serb machismo against the world to thinking what your country is going to look like if this continues.”

2001, Afghanistan: Over the summer, negotiations between western oil companies and the Afghan Taliban to build a pipeline across the country fall through. Niaz Naikm (former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan) reveals that senior American officials told him during this time that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to occur “before the snows [starts] falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest“.  After 9/11, this objective is realized.

2003, Iraq: Following western propaganda about Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction” program, President George W. Bush launches an invasion of the country. This comes after 10 years of western-backed “no-fly zones“, and crippling economic sanctions.

By 2011, most US forces leave the country; however, a noteworthy presence remains, including a $700 million dollar embassy in Baghdad, Iraq — the largest U.S. embassy in the world, and a 46-aircraft air service for over 15,000 diplomats working for the State Department. 

2009, Yemen: U.S. aidmissiles — and eventually, aerial Predator drones — are deployed to the country to fight “al-Qaeda” affiliates. From a strategic perspective, Yemen is important because it allows access to a vital world-wide oil shipping chokepoint.

2010, Pakistan: U.S. Predator drones begin attacking targets along the Afghan-Pakistan border, killing dozens of civilians in the process.

2010, South Korea: On the evening of March 26, 2010, the Cheonan, a South Korean ship, is conducting a routine naval patrol when an explosion unexpectedly tears into it, splitting the vessel in half and killing 46 sailors. Shortly after, western powers blame North Korea for the attack, though North Korea denies responsibility.

The attack gives the United States an opportunity to prolong its control over South Korean forces until 2015, and also extend its stay at nearby Japanese military bases.

2011, Libya: The U.S. claims Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is ‘massacring’ demonstrators protesting his regime; however, these accusations are drastically overblown. Regardless, a US-backed, NATO-imposed “no-fly zone” is enabled, responsible for murdering hundreds of Libyan civilians.

Many of the NATO attacks target Gaddafi, with one such strike taking the lives of his three grandchildren — two toddlers, one infant. Gaddafi himself is eventually captured and killed.

Two years prior, Gaddafi planned to nationalize Libya’s oil reserves, the largest in Africa.

It is perhaps too easy to look at U.S. foreign policy by the standards of the post-9/11 world, forgetting all that happened before.

Without an accurate understanding of the past, we’ll always be doomed to repeat it

See also: 

The aforementioned information is deliberately presented in a relatively simple context for brevity. I encourage you to explore the sources referenced, and continue learning through your own research.
For such a purpose, the following links may also be of interest:
America’s Global Neocon War – Bush-era neocons are still very much directing foreign policy in the United States, ultimately aiming for conflict with Russia and China
Democrats merge with GOP, form War Party – Bush helped Republicans justify needless war, Obama has helped Democrats; now, there is no mainstream anti-war partyThe Sinking of the Cheonan – South Korea blames the North for sinking a warship in 2010, giving the U.S. a reason to extend its military presence in the regionThe United States of Predator Drones – From Afghanistan to Yemen, from Yemen to Mexico, from Mexico to your back yard, drone use has drastically expanded and shows no signs of slowing downWar Made Easy – documentary about news media manipulation of public opinion to gain support for various war efforts throughout the last 50 years

Why We Fight – documentary about 9/11, U.S. foreign policy, and defense companies

Lies My Teacher Told Me

A People’s History of the United States

The “Manifest Destiny” of America and its long-term consequences (Written in May 5, 2008)

The late Pakistani writer, Eqbal Ahmad, said: “Osama Ben Laden is the sign of the times to come.  The USA has sawed the seeds of extremist Islam in the eighties in the Middle East and South Asia and now the poisonous seeds have germinated.”

I am inclined to think that the US authorities have sawed these grains on purpose, but didn’t spend much time evaluating their long-term consequences; much less that extremism might strike inside the USA territories, regardless of religious affiliation and the color of the skin.

In general, the common American public doesn’t strike us as cultured, or cares that much about foreign politics:  The US public figures, even those in the Foreign Services, do not sound that hot on details on overseas matters, or care to invest time comprehending other cultures and traditions, or learn the language.

One fact is clear: the US political administrators, since the independence of the USA, had a deep sense of their “manifest destiny” to spreading their dominion around the world.

The American pioneers first displaced and exterminated the indigenes in the North-East.

After their independence from England, the “pioneers” acquired and conquered territories by any means possible. The US administrators purchased the “Louisiana Territories” from France during Emperor Napoleon, this vast region now called the Mid-West and including Louisiana State.  Bonaparte needed cash money to finance his war campaigns in Europe.  The irony is that English banks financed the transaction.

The US  tried to expand to the west but failed in the first attempts around 1840, though the campaign set the ground for weakening the customs of the Indian tribes and their cohesion.

The US expanded into Florida and pushed westward and displaced and exterminated the original Indians after the civil war in 1865 in order to find jobs for the returning soldiers and displaced people: They slaughtered the bison to deny the Indian their regular food at the season of bison migration…

The next expansion phase was directed southward and evacuated the Mexicans from Texas and the South-West.

The US administrators purchased Alaska from Imperial Russia.

At this stage, the US administrators infiltrated South America and North America and then acquired colonies in the Pacific like the Philippines (displacing colonial Spain) and many islands.  The nearby island of Cuba in the Atlantic was also “reclaimed” from weak Spain for defaulting on sovereign debts.

The US administrators used the first and second world wars to tighten their grips on Europe and steal the remaining colonies under the French, English and Spanish colonial powers in the Middle East, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Arabic Gulf, Iran, and Viet Nam.

Now, the US administrators are focusing on Africa and its natural resources and affirming their dominion in the Middle East for the exploitation of oil.

The USA has a definite strategic policy regardless of which political party is in power.

The US thinks that it can afford wasteful decisions in resources and manpower as long as the objectives have potentials to be realized. The US navy and aircraft carriers are present in all Oceans and Seas and they were deployed even before the Soviet Union put in orbit Sputnik and exploded its first atomic bomb.

The gamut of excuses for exercising strong-arm policies are varied and long, but are always disseminated as well-meaning policies to safeguarding liberty for all, free flow of goods, money, human rights, free speech, and so on.

Only the US could dare invent a new excuse based on spreading democracy; this fuzzy doctrine that does not suit US interests abroad and around the world and is not practically applied in the US either.

Unfortunately for us in the Middle-East, the convictions of the 40 million neo-conservative Christians who elected so far 3 Presidents (who share their conviction such as Reagan, Bush father and Bush son), believe in all the Jewish prophecies and the apocalypse of St. John.

Worst, the archaic Christian conservatives staunchly believe that Armageddon (Herr Megiddo or Mount Megiddo, a strategic town in Palestine where many ancient battles between the Jews and the people of Canaan took place) would happen during their lifetime. Thus, the need to hasten the repatriation of all the Jews to Palestine as the prophecies dictates.

The US administrators cannot accept any criticisms from foreigners, much less from the UN, and they feel bold to affirm that whatever group of nations sign on a treaty under the UN auspices is not necessarily valid for the unique US superpower to follow or abide in.

The UN laws on prisoners of war is not applicable to the US, the climatic changes and their remedies are not applicable to the US, the unilateral declaration of wars against sovereign States are within the US rights, the total and unconditional supports for Israel’s cruel and inhuman deeds to the Palestinians is sanctioned regardless of the protests of the US citizens.

It seems that democracy means the election for a term, so that all decisions are reserved to the elected President, the modern, all-powerful monarch wrapped under the disguise of democracy, of “In God we…”

The attacks on The World Trade Towers and the Pentagon were crimes, simply because the organization behind it failed to preempt these attacks with a clear message that should enlighten the American people to the consequences of their constant violence perpetrated against the Arabs and Moslems for many decades.

The message should have been propagated that actions against the US would take effects because the US flaunted the UN resolutions for the rights of return of the Palestinians and other political refugees, the persistent vetoes of the US against any resolution condemning Israel’s actions contrary to human rights and protection of the civilians under a colonial power, the continuous support of the US to the oppressors of the monarchs and dictatorial regimes in the “Greater Middle-East” which is contrary to its proclaimed adherence to democracy, liberty and equality under the international laws.

Failing to preempt the attack with a political message is tantamount to claiming metaphysical rights emanating from God, and the response of the US of taking up metaphysical rights renders the two sides as two back cheeks in the same pair of pants.

At least, the attackers of the September 11, 2001, should have accepted responsibility with a clear political message and not leave it to the American people to deduce a message of convenience as if this terror is the act of Satan and perpetrated by fools and death mongers.

This attack was planned and executed by people not in desperation or lacking the education or means to responding to B-52, but by people whose objectives have shifted to the metaphysical realm, and do not give a hoot to suffering and pain and indignity for man.

Anyway, there are plenty of indications that the planners and facilitator of the Twin Tower attack were masterminded by insiders in the US and Israel.

It dawned on me that the strategy of putting all the blame of our plights as Arabs and Palestinians, solely on the successive US administrations, did not generate any change of venue to the total and unconditional support for the State of Israel.

It is time to change strategy. Our governments and intellectuals have to target the American people as true racists and hate-monger of the Arabs.

The basis of this strategy is that the American people are very patriotic and react vigorously to any proclamations that defame their cherished foundations as free and friendly people.

We have got to rely on the strong reactions of the American people for being treated as the malefic enemy of peace, so that they start questioning their representatives and pressuring their administrations and press for fair and equitable policies.

Nations during the intermittent period between successive wars, also called peace time, try valiantly to diplomatically differentiate between the people and their governments.  This policy during peace time is evidently a policy of appeasement.  Otherwise, why is it that during war periods such a differentiation does not take holds?

When a people obey the order of their government to joining the army and fighting for the interest of the elite classes, they are agreeing to the policy of war, and it does not matter in what capacity the citizens are participating in the war.

Personal responsibility is reduced to an active involvement of every citizen against the government that decided on an offensive war; good intentions and lukewarm verbal opposition on the theme that we are ignorant and have not the full arrays of facts and motivation for the war because we are not into politics would never cut it.

You might retort that the Israelis have the rights to kill the civilians because they are at war with the Palestinians, that Israel has the right to preempt wars on every Arab State that didn’t sign a shameful peace treaty with the Zionist State.  I would say that the Palestinians do not form a State and they are under colonial occupation since Israel is in reality a USA colonial extension.

The Palestinians should be under the protection of the UN against occupation. The modern Palestinian holocaust, daily humiliation and evident racism, apartheid policies, and the formation of Bantustans should have long time ago raised the consciousness of the US people.

So far, the UN has been treating the Palestinians as refugees but was helpless in overcoming the frequent US vetoes.

You might say that the USA has legitimacy in killing over one million Iraqis since 2003 (directly and indirectly) and I would reply that the US is an invading country that didn’t enjoy even the UN mandate for its war.  The Iraqis must consider the whole US population as its enemy if they intend to succeed in their endeavor of getting rid of the nasty occupation.

I am convinced that our civil wars in Lebanon from 1975 till 1992 is the planning and decision of the USA and I will not forgive that people for their lies by claiming that our civil war was too complex to understand or put and end to it.

Note:  Was it the “Manifest Destiny” of America to becoming the worst cheater in the history of civilization?  Manufacturing worthless dollars to pay-off 14 trillion in public debt?

Was it the “Manifest Destiny” of America to becoming the most “democratic” brutal country, waging preemptive wars in order to renew its huge reserves in ammunition and military hardware?

Was it the “Manifest Destiny” of America of becoming the most powerful country to displacing the God of valuing human life and dignity and replacing it with the “God of the green money” at any cost of moral standards?


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

November 2020
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

Blog Stats

  • 1,441,590 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 784 other followers

%d bloggers like this: