31.738
Bearbeitungen
Angriffskrieg: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
→U.S. Aggressions
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) (→Iran) |
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| (11 dazwischenliegende Versionen desselben Benutzers werden nicht angezeigt) | |||
| Zeile 25: | Zeile 25: | ||
== Angriffskriege im 21. Jahrhundert == | == Angriffskriege im 21. Jahrhundert == | ||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#2010.E2.80.93present Timeline of US military operations, in: en.wikipedia] | |||
=== U.S. Aggressions === | |||
*Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000 Wesley Clark claims that in 2001, Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld put out a memo proposing to take over seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. | |||
According to [http://davidswanson.org David Swanson] of the ''Information Clearing House''': | |||
:In the United States it is considered fashionable to maintain a steadfast ignorance of rejected peace offers, and to believe that all the wars launched by the U.S. government are matters of "last resort." Our schools still don't teach that Spain wanted the matter of the Maine to go to international arbitration, that Japan wanted peace before Hiroshima, that the Soviet Union proposed peace negotiations before the Korean War, or that the U.S. sabotaged peace proposals for Vietnam from the Vietnamese, the Soviets, and the French. When a Spanish newspaper reported that Saddam Hussein had offered to leave Iraq before the 2003 invasion, U.S. media took little interest. When British media reported that the Taliban was willing to have Osama bin Laden put on trial before the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. journalists yawned. Iran's 2003 offer to negotiate ending its nuclear energy program wasn't mentioned much during this year's debate over an agreement with Iran -- which was itself nearly rejected as an impediment to war. | |||
:The Guardian reported on Tuesday that the former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari, who had been involved in negotiations in 2012, said that in 2012 Russia had proposed a process of peace settlement between the Syrian government and its opponents that would have included President Bashar al-Assad stepping down. But, according to Ahtisaari, the United States was so confident that Assad would soon be violently overthrown that it rejected the proposal. | |||
:The catastrophic Syrian civil war since 2012 has followed U.S. adherence to actual U.S. policy in which peaceful compromise is usually the last resort. Does the U.S. government believe violence tends to produce better results? The record shows otherwise. More likely it believes that violence will lead to greater U.S.-control, while satisfying the war industry. The record on the first part of that is mixed at best. (U.S. State Department cables released by WikiLeaks trace U.S. efforts in Syria to undermine the government back to at least 2006.) | |||
:Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000 Wesley Clark claims that in 2001, Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld put out a memo proposing to take over seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. The basic outline of this plan was confirmed by none other than former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who in 2010 pinned it on former Vice President Dick Cheney: | |||
:"Cheney wanted forcible 'regime change' in all Middle Eastern countries that he considered hostile to U.S. interests, according to Blair. 'He would have worked through the whole lot, Iraq, Syria, Iran, dealing with all their surrogates in the course of it — Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.,' Blair wrote. 'In other words, he [Cheney] thought the world had to be made anew, and that after 11 September, it had to be done by force and with urgency. So he was for hard, hard power. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.'" | |||
:U.S. State Department cables released by WikiLeaks trace U.S. efforts in Syria to undermine the government back to at least 2006. In 2013, the White House went public with plans to lob some unspecified number of missiles into Syria, which was in the midst of a horrible civil war already fueled in part by U.S. arms and training camps, as well as by wealthy U.S. allies in the region and fighters emerging from other U.S.-created disasters in the region. | |||
:The excuse for the missiles was an alleged killing of civilians, including children, with chemical weapons -- a crime that President Barack Obama claimed to have certain proof had been committed by the Syrian government. Watch the videos of the dead children, the President said, and support that horror or support my missile strikes. Those were the only choices, supposedly. It wasn't a soft sell, but it wasn't a powerful or successful one either. | |||
:The "proof" of responsibility for that use of chemical weapons fell apart, and public opposition to what we later learned would have been a massive bombing campaign succeeded. Public opposition succeeded without knowing about the rejected proposal for peace of 2012. But it succeeded without follow-through. No new effort was made for peace, and the U.S. went right ahead inching its way into the war with trainers and weapons and drones. | |||
:In January 2015, a scholarly study found that the U.S. public believes that whenever the U.S. government proposes a war, it has already exhausted all other possibilities. When a sample group was asked if they supported a particular war, and a second group was asked if they supported that particular war after being told that all alternatives were no good, and a third group was asked if they supported that war even though there were good alternatives, the first two groups registered the same level of support, while support for war dropped off significantly in the third group. This led the researchers to the conclusion that if alternatives are not mentioned, people don't assume they exist — rather, people assume they've already been tried. So, if you mention that there is a serious alternative, the game is up. You'll have to get your war on later. | |||
:Based on the record of past wars, engaged in and avoided, as it dribbles out in the years that follow, the general assumption should always be that peace has been carefully avoided at every turn. | |||
[http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41960.htm Aggressive Militäraktionen gingen an der Wende vom 20./21. Jhdt. vor allem von den USA aus]: | |||
:Since 1980 the U.S. has engaged in aggressive military action in 14 countries in the Islamic world alone, according to research published in the Washington Post: Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-present), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-present), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-present), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-prsent), Pakistan (2004-present) and now Syria. In this hemisphere, U.S. military forces invaded Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989) and landed 20,000 military forces in Haiti (1994). | |||
===U.S. Global War Machine=== | |||
The U.S. has 1.3 million people in the military, and another 1 million serve in the military reserves. The U.S. has over 700 military bases in 63 countries across the world, deploying over 255,000 U.S. military personnel there. The Department of Defense officially manages over 555,000 buildings on 4,400 properties inside the U.S., and on over 700 properties across the globe. The U.S. has over 1,500 strategic nuclear warheads; over 13,000 military aircraft; dozens of submarines, many of which carry nuclear weapons; and 88 destroyer warships. | |||
===Global Harm=== | |||
Nearly 7,000 U.S. military people died as a result of the wars waged by the U.S. since 9/11. Just as important, in Iraq over 216,000 combatants, most of them civilians, have died since the 2003 invasion. Some estimates of Iraq casualties are double that. No one even counted civilian deaths in Afghanistan for the first five years of our war there. Our drone attacks have murdered hundreds of children and civilian adults in Pakistan, and dozens more in Yemen. | |||
World Leader in War Spending | |||
U.S. military spending is about the same as the total of military spending by the next eight largest countries combined -- that is, more than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, India and Germany combined. | |||
Since 9/11 U.S. spending on our military cost well over $3 trillion. Direct combat and reconstruction costs for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11 have officially cost U.S. taxpayers $1.6 trillion dollars, according to the Congressional Research Service. Additional trillions have been spent on growing the Pentagon budget, and for present and future increased health and disability benefits for veterans. | |||
The U.S. military captures 55 percent of our national discretionary spending, and spending on veterans benefits is another 6 percent. Since 9/11 military spending has increased by 50 percent, while spending on other discretionary domestic spending increased by 13 percent, according to the National Priorities Project. | |||
Corporate War Profiteers | |||
With these trillions being spent on war, there are legions of corporations profiting. | |||
The number-one war profiteer is Lockheed Martin, according to USA Today, with annual arms sales of $36 billion. Not surprisingly, Lockheed Martin spends over $14 million a year on lobbying the people who make the decisions about how much money is spent on weapons and which weapons will be purchased. Their CEO is paid over $15 million, according to their 2015 shareholder report, and on their board is James Ellis, a former admiral and commander in chief of U.S. Strategic Air Command, who gets paid over $277,000 for the part-time work, and James Loy, former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, who gets over $260,000 for his part-time work. Lockheed receives substantial government contracts, amounting, by one calculation, to over $260 from each taxpaying household in the U.S. They are so entitled that a 2014 special investigation by the U.S. Department of Energy found that Lockheed used taxpayer funds to lobby for more taxpayer funds. | |||
The number-two war profiteer is Boeing, with annual arms sales of $31 billion. Boeings spends over $16 million a year on lobbying. The rest of the top ten corporations profiting from war include BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Raytheon, EADS, Finmeccanica, L-3 Communications, and United Technologies. You can track their corporate contributions to members of Congress, especially the politicians on the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate, on Open Secrets. | |||
While most of the lobbying money has gone to Republicans, all the arms merchants hire lobbyists who can influence Democrats and Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. | |||
And these war profiteers do not just sell to the U.S. government. The U.S. sold more than $26 billion in weapons to foreign nations and has been number one for a long time, though recently that title has been going back and forth with Russia. | |||
===What to Do=== | |||
On April 4, 1967, in his famous Riverside Church address, Martin Luther King Jr. said the U.S. government was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. In response, he called for a true revolution of values. This revolution calls us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies, including war and the contrast of wealth and poverty in our own country and across the world. | |||
=== Irak === | === Irak === | ||
| Zeile 54: | Zeile 116: | ||
*2008: Der UN-Sicherheitsrat beschließt schärfere Sanktionen [http://www.welt.de/politik/article1753390/Sicherheitsrat_beschliesst_neue_Iran_Sanktionen.html]: striktere Reiseverbote für Atomwissenschaftler und deren Mitarbeiter, aber auch verschärfte Handelsbeschränkungen für Güter, die sowohl zu friedlichen Zwecken als auch zum Bau von Waffen verwendet werden können. Darüber hinaus geht es um das Einfrieren von Konten, die stärkere Inspektion von Frachtgut und die Überwachung von Exportkrediten. | *2008: Der UN-Sicherheitsrat beschließt schärfere Sanktionen [http://www.welt.de/politik/article1753390/Sicherheitsrat_beschliesst_neue_Iran_Sanktionen.html]: striktere Reiseverbote für Atomwissenschaftler und deren Mitarbeiter, aber auch verschärfte Handelsbeschränkungen für Güter, die sowohl zu friedlichen Zwecken als auch zum Bau von Waffen verwendet werden können. Darüber hinaus geht es um das Einfrieren von Konten, die stärkere Inspektion von Frachtgut und die Überwachung von Exportkrediten. | ||
*2009: Im August berichtet DER SPIEGEL, zeige sich von Sanktionen unbeeindruckt. Ölminister Gholamhossein Nosari habe erklärt, es seien "alle nötigen Maßnahmen" getroffen worden, um ausreichend Benzin bereitzustellen; es bestehe keine Sorge, dass der Benzinbedarf des Landes nicht gedeckt werden könne. Diese Äußerung sei als Reaktion auf jüngste westliche Boykott-Drohungen zu verstehen. Die USA und ihre Verbündeten planten schärfere Sanktionen gegen Iran, um das Land zum Einlenken im Atomstreit zu bewegen. Dabei würden auch Einschränkungen der Benzinlieferungen diskutiert. Seit einigen Wochen liefen Gespräche zwischen den USA und der EU, wie man Iran von den Importen von Benzin und anderen aufbereiteten Ölprodukten abschneiden könnte.. Der US-Senat hätte 2008 dafür gestimmt, Konzerne, die Benzin und andere raffinierte Ölprodukte an Iran verkauften, von Aufträgen des Energieministeriums auszuschließen. | *2009: Im August berichtet DER SPIEGEL, zeige sich von Sanktionen unbeeindruckt. Ölminister Gholamhossein Nosari habe erklärt, es seien "alle nötigen Maßnahmen" getroffen worden, um ausreichend Benzin bereitzustellen; es bestehe keine Sorge, dass der Benzinbedarf des Landes nicht gedeckt werden könne. Diese Äußerung sei als Reaktion auf jüngste westliche Boykott-Drohungen zu verstehen. Die USA und ihre Verbündeten planten schärfere Sanktionen gegen Iran, um das Land zum Einlenken im Atomstreit zu bewegen. Dabei würden auch Einschränkungen der Benzinlieferungen diskutiert. Seit einigen Wochen liefen Gespräche zwischen den USA und der EU, wie man Iran von den Importen von Benzin und anderen aufbereiteten Ölprodukten abschneiden könnte.. Der US-Senat hätte 2008 dafür gestimmt, Konzerne, die Benzin und andere raffinierte Ölprodukte an Iran verkauften, von Aufträgen des Energieministeriums auszuschließen. --- Im Dezember berichtet die Wiener "Presse", der türkische Ministerpräsident Recep Tayyip Erdogan habesich nicht amerikanischem Druck gebeugt, Sanktionen gegen den Iran mitzutragen: "Auf einer Pressekonferenz im Weißen Haus sagte Erdogan nach einem Treffen mit US-Präsident Barack Obama am Montag, der Iran sollte mit diplomatischen Mitteln von seinem umstrittenen Atomprogramm abgebracht werden. Wie der türkische Premier weiter sagte, sei die Resolution der Internationalen Atomenergieagentur IAEA (IAEO) gegen den Iran "zu schnell" verabschiedet worden. Es seien nicht alle Maßnahmen ausgeschöpft worden. Zuvor hatte er gegenüber Obama versichert, die Türkei sei bereit, "alles für eine diplomatische Lösung" der Atomfrage in der Region zu tun. Die IAEA hatte den Iran für sein Verhalten im Atomstreit Ende November in einer Resolution verurteilt. Von den 35 Mitgliedern des Gremiums hatten damals 25 für die Resolution gestimmt, in der die sogenannte Sechsergruppe unter anderem einen Baustopp für die neue iranische Atomanlage verlangt. Die Türkei hatte sich enthalten und jüngst auch den zivilen Charakter des iranischen Atomprogramms verteidigt, den auch Teheran immer wieder betont" [http://diepresse.com/home/politik/aussenpolitik/526910/IranSanktionen_Erdogan-laesst-Obama-abblitzen]. | ||
*2010: Im Juni tritt die vierte Runde der Sanktionen in Kraft - mit härteren Sanktionen als zuvor, die sich diesmal vor allem gegen Banken und Finanzgeschäfte richten [http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,699802,00.html]. | |||
*2011: Die EU-Außenminister erhöhen die Zahl der von der EU boykottierten Firmen und Organisationen um 143 auf 433 und die Zahl der Einreiseverbote um 37 auf 113. "Wir können die Option einer nuklearen Bewaffnung des Iran nicht akzeptieren", sagte Bundesaußenminister Guido Westerwelle (FDP). Umstritten bleibt vorerst ein Ölembargo gegen Iran [http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2011-12/eu-iran-sanktionen]. ---- Im Dezember warnt Ron Paul, einer der Bewerber um die Präsidentschaftskandidatur der Republikaner, dass die Sanktionspolitik gegen Iran zum Krieg führen würde [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVPvc0eSNkU]. | |||
* | *2012: Regierungen und die Führer relevanter Oppositionsparteien vieler Staaten erklären nach und nach, dass sie sich im Falle eines Angriffs auf Iran auf die Seite der Angreifer stellen würden. | ||
== Literatur == | == Literatur == | ||