Comparable to a poker game, demonstrating the intentions of a play can cost us the entire game. In chess, before moving a piece, we must think at least three moves ahead. Moving a chess piece without considering the consequences, would put us at a disadvantage. The United States gives life to these analogies. In the game of global domination, they know very well which pieces to move and what expressions to maintain.
Many governments with communist tendencies, such as Russia, China, and Venezuela, have publicly denounced that the United States seeks to intervene nations based on internal destabilization as justification. However, as much as we disagree with these governments, they are denouncing a reality: the United States invents narratives to justify or force actions of war and intervention in countries that are of vital importance for world dominance.
United States: A History of Interventions
This is not about paranoia or conspiracy theories. Let’s review the last 30 years of history and confirm the moves in the big world board.
Let’s travel to 1970, the year in which Panama began to establish good relations with other countries of Central America. These ties were of benefit to Latin nations but left the USA with few economic benefits, so a dispute begins to control the Panama Canal.
What follows is the repertoire that we already know: diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and manipulation of information. The CIA had found collaboration with Manuel Antonio Noriega, General and in charge of the Panamanian government. However, Noriega separated from the agency and in 1989, George Bush Sr. authorized “Operation Just Cause”, invading Panama to “protect its citizens” and “defend democracy and human rights.”
Now let’s zoom in on the Middle East, the year 1991. The United States was desperately looking for allies to control Iran, they ran into Saddam Hussein and granted him arms and money. Sadly for the US, Saddam did not help to end the Islamic revolution but strengthened his government.
Iraq then began a conflict with Kuwait due to economic issues (mainly the theft of oil in Iraqi territory). The United States, shielded by the UN, decided to intervene to stop the advances of Hussein, who was a popular man in his nation. He not only had weapons and money but also the support of the people. According to the United States, he was a bloodthirsty dictator.
At the end of that year, “Operation Desert Storm” was carried out, stopping the Iraqi army and leaving a large number of civilian casualties.
The Infallible Shield: UN and NATO
It is not enough to justify the invasion of a country (conveniently possessing important natural resources or a geopolitical position of interest) with the defense of democracy and citizenship. We also need the support of a country or a publicly “disinterested” organization. You know so that the world does not accuse us of wanting to appropriate a territory by force.
That support is the UN and NATO, which through a facade of neutrality and defense of humanity, favors US military movements. Need proof? The authorized interventions to Somalia, Yugoslavia, Sudan, and Afghanistan.
An interesting fact is the origin of the Taliban, a terrorist group that operates in Afghanistan. By the 1980s, Russia controlled much of the Afghan region, a fact that the United States never liked and, under a shield of nationalist defense, decided to arm rebels to support them in the fight against Soviet troops.
The Russian troops were expelled from Afghanistan, but the rebels kept their weapons and, over the years, gave birth to what we know today as Al Qaeda. A terrorist group that claimed responsibility for 9/11, attacks that gave rise to a new invasion of Afghanistan.
Same Excuses, Different Objectives
In a contemporary line, the opportunity to take Saddam’s power over Iraq was reborn. The United States assured the world that the Iraqi nation was developing nuclear weapons and George Bush Jr. authorized a new invasion in 2003. Almost 9 months later, after heavy sanctions from Russia, China, and France for lack of evidence, American troops withdrew from Iraq.
In 2011, they also took advantage of conflicts between Gaddafi’s government in Libya and its opposition. The United States assured that Gaddafi used military airplanes to suppress protests against him (this was never proven), the UN and NATO authorized sanctions for Libya that ended with the bombing of government buildings in the country.
And more recently, the interest in Syria for its oil fields. Bashar Al Assad’s administration is constantly attacked, ensuring that it cooperates with the Islamic State to terrorize the citizenry. The reality is that the US media does not record the victories of the Syrian army against terrorism and accuses Al Assad of massacring his population without evidence.
Perhaps the teaching of this historical recount is to look beyond appearances, a disinterested American military action or interference in defense of humanity is practically a utopia. It’s our own duty to read, investigate, analyze and give opinions to educate.
- The Problem with CIA Director Gina Haspel - May 20, 2018
- Is a New Nicaraguan Revolution on its Way? - May 6, 2018
- Peace Treaty in Shambles? Colombian Rebels Kill Journalists - April 20, 2018
- Sylvi Listhaug: The Day Norway’s Government Almost Collapsed - April 3, 2018
- Jedwabne Pogrom: Is Poland Trying to Erase History? - March 22, 2018