🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <btsela$rgf$1@quark.scn.rain.com>, Mark Nelsen says...
>
>Of course if the Russians could modify weather, don't you think they would
>modify THEIR OWN CLIMATE????


The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.
FYI, The USA and Russia signed a weather-modification
treaty in teh 1970's.  As far as who is the most
interventionist, I let the facts speak for themselves.  

THE LIST: Bombing people into democracy

[To test the theory that a good way to bring democracy to a country is 
to bomb it to smithereens, Vietnam Veterans Against the War offer this 
list of countries compiled by William Blum where we used tried 
percussive education. In no case did a democratic government, respectful 
of human rights, occur as a direct result]

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99, 2003
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
- - - 
TERRORISM : A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS From Wounded
Knee to Afghanistan Compiled by Zoltan Grossman (revised 09/20/01)

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from
1890 to 1999. This guide does NOT include:

_ Demonstration duty by military police _ Mobilizations of the
National Guard _ Offshore shows of naval strength _ Reinforcements
of embassy personnel _ The use of non-Defense Department personnel
(such as the DEA) _ Military exercises _ Non-combat mobilizations
_ The permanent stationing of armed forces _ Covert actions where
the U.S. did not play a command and control role _ The use of small
hostage rescue units _ Most uses of proxy troops _ U.S. piloting
of foreign warplanes _ Foreign disaster assistance _ Military
training and advisory programs not involving direct combat _ Civic
action programs and many other military activities.

Among sources used, besides news reports, are the Congressional
Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corps History
Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug. 1982), and Daniel
Ellsberg in Protest & Survive. "Instances of Use of United States
Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of
Congress Congressional Research Service.

SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at
Wounded Knee.

ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.

CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.

HAITI 1891 Troops Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa
Island defeated.

IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.

HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown,
annexed.

CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.

NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War.

KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES 1898-1910(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed
600,000 Filipinos.

CUBA 1898-1902(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy
base.

PUERTO RICO 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation
continues.

GUAM 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.

MINNESOTA 1898(-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War.

KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES 1898-1910(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed
600,000 Filipinos.

CUBA 1898-1902(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy
base.

PUERTO RICO 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation
continues.

GUAM 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.

MINNESOTA 1898(-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.

SAMOA 1899(-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.

NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.

IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.

OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.

PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed
Canal Zone 1914-99.

HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.

DOMINICAN REP.

1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.

KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.

CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.

NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.

HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua.

PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.

NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.

HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.

CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.

CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in Havanna.

PANAMA 19l2 Troops Marines land during heated election.

HONDURAS 19l2 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.

NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 20-year occupation, fought
guerrillas.

MEXICO 19l3 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.

COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.

MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against
nationalists.

HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.

CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.

WORLD WAR I 19l7-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany

RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks.

PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.

YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs
in Dalmatia.

HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.

WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against
mineworkers.

TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).

CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.

HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.

PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.

CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.

EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt.

WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.

WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear Fought Axis
for 3 years;  Over 200,000 civilian casualties in 1st nuclear
strikes.

DETROIT 1943 Troops Army puts down Black rebellion.

IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian
Azerbaijan).

YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Naval Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.

URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.

GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in
civil war.

CHINA 1948-49 Troops Marines evacuate Americans before Communist
victory.

GERMANY 1948 Nuclear threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin
Airlift.

PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk
Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed
in Ponce.

KOREA 1950-53 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats U.S.& South
Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in
1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases.

IRAN 1953 Command operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs
Shah.

VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat Bombs offered to French to use against
siege.

GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA
directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalizes U.S. company
lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez
crisis;  marines evacuate foreigners

LEBANON 1958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.

IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.

CHINA 1958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.

PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM 1960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought
South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest
U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.

CUBA 1961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY 1961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

CUBA 1962 Nuclear threat Naval Blockade during missile crisis;

near-war with USSR.

LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.

PANAMA 1964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA 1965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted
army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during
election campaign.

GUATEMALA 1966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against
rebels.

DETROIT 1967 Troops Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.

UNITED STATES 1968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers
in cities.

CAMBODIA 1969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in
decade of  bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN 1970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS 1971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese
invasion;

"carpet-bombs" countryside.

SOUTH DAKOTA 1973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege
of Lakotas.

MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.

CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist
president.

CAMBODIA 1975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter
crash.

ANGOLA 1976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed
rebels.

IRAN 1980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue
Embassy hostages;  8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets
warned not to get involved in revolution.

LIBYA 1981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.

EL SALVADOR 1981-92 Command operation, troop advisors, overflights
aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA 1981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra)
invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

LEBANON 1982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back
Phalangists,  Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.

HONDURAS 1983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

GRENADA 1983-84 Troops, bombing invasion four years after revolution.

IRAN 1984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.

LIBYA 1986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.

IRAN 1987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.

LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.

VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.

PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against
coup.

PANAMA 1989-90 Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by
27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.

LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.

SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading
Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE,
Israel.

IRAQ 1990-?

Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air
strikes;

200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over
Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi
military.

KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to
throne.

LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police
uprising.

SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations
occupation during civil war;

raids against one Mogadishu faction.

YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA 1993-95 Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war;

downed jets, bombed Serbs.

HAITI 1994-96 Troops, naval Blockade against military government;

troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.

CROATIA 1995 Bombing Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian
offensive.

ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps,
in area where Congo revolution begins.

LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of
foreigners.

ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of
foreigners.

SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be
"terrorist" nerve gas plant.

Over 30, 000 civilian casualties. US blocks UN war-crimes inquiry
at the security council.

AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used
by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

IRAQ 1998-?

Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons
inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.

YUGOSLAVIA 1999-?

Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to
withdraw from Kosovo.

YEMEN 2000 Naval Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.

MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian
rebels.

UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Response to hijacking attacks.

AFGHANISTAN 2001 Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin
Laden. War could expand to Iraq, Sudan, and beyond.

__________________________________________ For more information or
with comments and additions please contact:

Zoltan Grossman, 1705 Rutledge, Madison, WI 53704 Phone/Fax
(608)246-2256.

mtn@igc.apc.org Permission to reproduce this list in its entirety
is granted by the author, please send any published copy to the
above address.
- - - - - -
RECOVERED HISTORY: AMERICA'S RECORD OF FAKING EVIDENCE

VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY - The U.S. has a long 
history of fabricating evidence to justify foreign adventures. Faked 
evidence was a hallmark of post-World War II U.S. covert operations in 
Latin America. In 1954, for example, it was instrumental in overthrowing 
the Arbenz government in Guatemala. Arbenz, who was suspected of having 
Communist leanings, had tried to make the United Fruit Company comply 
with Guatemalan law. At President Dwight D. Eisenhower�s direction, the 
CIA organized and armed a force of malcontent Guatemalans living in 
Nicaragua to invade their home country. The invasion was explained and 
justified when a cache of Soviet-made weapons planted by the CIA was 
discovered on Nicaragua's Atlantic coast. Washington alleged that the 
weapons were intended to support an attempt by Arbenz to overthrow the 
Nicaraguan government. 

One of the more egregious and embarrassing uses of fake material 
evidence occurred on the eve of the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, when 
Alabama National Guard B-26 bombers attacked a Cuban Air Force base in 
Havana. When Cuba's UN ambassador protested, US Ambassador Adlai 
Stevenson (himself misinformed by the White House) insisted that the 
attacking planes were those of defecting Cuban Air Force pilots. Two of 
the aircraft were shot down in Cuba, however, and others were forced to 
land in Miami where they could be examined. When it became clear that 
the planes were not Cuban, Washington�s hand was shown and Stevenson was 
in high dudgeon. 

The war in Vietnam is replete with examples of fabrication and/or 
misrepresentation of intelligence to justify U.S. government policies 
and actions. The best-known case, of course, is the infamous Tonkin Gulf 
incident the one that did not happen but was used by President Lyndon 
Johnson to strong-arm Congress into giving him carte blanche for the 
war. Adding insult to injury, CIA current intelligence analysts were 
forbidden to report accurately on what had happened (and not happened) 
in the Tonkin Gulf in their daily publication the next morning, on 
grounds that the President had already decided to use the non-incident 
to justify launching the air war that very day. The analysts were aghast 
when their seniors explained that they had decided that they did not 
want to wear out their welcome at the White House. 

With William Casey at the helm of the CIA during the Reagan presidency, 
the planting of evidence to demonstrate that opponents of governments in 
Central America were sponsored by the USSR reached new heights or 
depths. The following are representative examples: 

(a) In January 1981 four dugout canoes were discovered on a Salvadoran 
beach. The U.S. claimed that the boats had carried 100 armed Sandinista 
guerrillas from Nicaragua to support leftist insurgents in El Salvador. 
Neither weapons nor Nicaraguans traceable to the boats were ever found, 
but Washington drew attention to the fact that the wood from which the 
boats were made was not native to El Salvador. 

(b) In February 1981, the State Department issued a sensational white 
paper based on alleged Salvadoran rebel documents. Authored by a young, 
eager-to-please Foreign Service officer named John Glassman, the paper 
depicted damning links between the insurgents, Nicaragua, Cuba, and the 
Soviet Union. A smoking gun. Unfortunately for Glassman and the Reagan 
administration, Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Kwitny got access 
to the same documents and found little resemblance to what was contained 
in Glassman's paper. Glassman admitted to Kwitny that he had made up 
quotes and guessed at figures for the Soviet weapons supposedly coming 
to the Salvadoran insurgents. 

(c) Certainly among the most extraordinary attempts to plant evidence 
was the Barry Seal affair, a complicated operation designed to 
incriminate the Nicaraguan Sandinista government for international drug 
trafficking. The operation began in 1982, when CIA Director Casey 
created the position of National Intelligence Officer for Narcotics. 
Casey's handpicked NIO wasted no time telling representatives of other 
agencies that high priority was to be given to finding evidence linking 
both Castro and the Sandinistas to the burgeoning cocaine trade. 

Coast Guard and Drug Enforcement Agency officers protested that this 
might be counterproductive since Cuba was the most cooperative 
government in the Caribbean in the fight against drugs and there was no 
evidence showing that the Nicaraguan government played any significant 
role. Never mind, said the NIO, the task was to put black hats on our 
enemies. 

In 1986 Barry Seal, a former TWA pilot who had trained Nicaraguan Contra 
pilots in the early eighties, was facing a long sentence after a federal 
drug conviction in Florida. Seal made his way to the White House's 
National Security Council to make the following proposition to officials 
there. He would fly his own plane to Colombia and take delivery of 
cocaine. He would then make an emergency landing in Nicaragua and make 
it appear that Sandinista officials were aiding him in drug trafficking. 
Seal made it clear that he would expect help with his legal problems. 

The Reagan White House jumped at the offer. Seal's plane was flown to 
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, where it was fitted with secret cameras 
to enable Seal to photograph Nicaraguan officials in the act of 
assisting him with the boxes of cocaine. 

The operation went as planned. Seal flew to Colombia and then to 
Nicaragua where he landed at a commercial airfield. There he was met by 
a Nicaraguan named Federico Vaughan, who helped with the offloading and 
reloading of boxes of cocaine and was duly photographed not very well, 
it turned out, because the special cameras malfunctioned. Though blurred 
and grainy, the photos were delivered to the White House, and a 
triumphant Ronald Reagan went on national TV to show that the 
Sandinistas were not only Communists but also criminals intent on 
addicting America s youth. 

Again, the Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Kwitny played the role of 
skunk at the picnic, pointing out substantial flaws in the concocted 
story. Vaughan, who according to the script was an assistant to 
Nicaraguan Interior Minister Tomas Borge, was shown not to be what he 
claimed. Indeed, congressional investigators found that the telephone 
number called by Seal to contact Vaughn belonged to the U.S. embassy in 
Managua. It was yet another fiasco, and Seal paid for it with his life. 
His Colombian drug suppliers were not amused when the Reagan 
administration identified him publicly as a US undercover agent. As he 
awaited trial on other narcotics charges in Louisiana, Seal was ambushed 
and killed by four gunmen who left his body riddled with 140 bullets. 

Fabricated evidence also played an important role in the first President 
Bush's attempt to secure congressional and UN approval for the 1991 Gulf 
War. 

(a) Few will forget the heart-rending testimony before a congressional 
committee by the sobbing 15 year-old Kuwaiti girl called Nayirah on 
October 10, 1990. No congressperson, no journalist took the trouble to 
probe the identity of Nayirah, who was said to be an escapee from Kuwait 
but was later revealed to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador in 
Washington. With consummate skill, the story had been manufactured out 
of whole cloth and the 15 year-old coached by the PR firm Hill & 
Knowlton, which has a rich history of being imbedded in Republican 
administrations. Similar unsubstantiated yarns made their debut several 
weeks later at the UN, where a team of seven witnesses, also coached by 
Hill & Knowlton, testified about atrocities in Iraq. (It was later 
learned that the seven had used false names.) And in an unprecedented 
move, the UN Security Council allowed the U.S. to show a video created 
by Hill & Knowlton. 

All to good effect. The PR campaign had the desired impact, and Congress 
voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq on January 12, 1991. 
(The UN did so on November 29, 1990.) Nayirah's true identity did not 
become known until two years later. 

Interestingly, the General Manager of Hill & Knowlton's Washington, DC 
office at the time was a woman named Victoria Clarke. She turned out to 
be less successful in her next job, as Press Secretary for the 
re-election campaign of President George Bush in 1992. But she is now 
back in her element as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public 
Affairs. 

There was a corollary fabrication that proved equally effective in 
garnering support in Congress for the war resolution in 1991. The White 
House claimed there were satellite photos showing Iraqi tanks and troops 
massing on the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, threatening to invade 
Saudi Arabia. This fueled the campaign for war and frightened the Saudis 
into agreeing to cooperate fully with U.S. military forces. 

On September 11, 1990, President George H. W. Bush, addressing a joint 
session of Congress, claimed 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks have 
poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. But an 
enterprising journalist, Jean Heller, reported in the St. Petersburg 
Times on January 6, 1991 (a bare ten days before the Gulf War began) 
that commercial satellite photos taken on September 11, the day the 
president spoke, showed no sign of a massive buildup of Iraqi forces in 
Kuwait. When the Pentagon was asked to provide evidence to support the 
president s claim, it refused to do so and continues to refuse to this 
day. 

http://www.guerrillanews.com/intelligence/doc1785.html

>
>
>"The TRUTH will be told!" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:2V5Mb.862$Ia.174@www.newsranger.com...
>> In article <btpl55$1qgn$1@pencil.math.missouri.edu>, President, USA Exile
>Govt.
>> says...
>> >
>> >Forwarded with Compliments of Government of the USA in Exile (GUSAE):
>> >Free Americans Resisting the Fourth Reich on Behalf of All Species.
>> >
>> >Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger
>> >Climate Change
>> >
>> >  by Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa
>> >
>> >Third World Resurgence, January 2001
>> >
>> >Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG),  globalresearch.ca,   4
>> >January 2002
>> >
>> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but
>> >a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating
>> >impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the World's
>> >climate can now be modified as part of a new generation of
>> >sophisticated "non-lethal weapons." Both the Americans and the
>> >Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the World's
>> >climate.
>> >
>> >In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency
>> >Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars")
>> >Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence
>> >suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of
>> >potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes.
>> > From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction.
>> >Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of
>> >selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of
>> >entire regions.
>> >
>> >While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used,
>> >surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of
>> >"environmental warfare" alongside the debate on the climatic impacts
>> >of greenhouse gases...
>> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate
>> >climatic manipulations for military use has never been explicitly
>> >part of the UN agenda on climate change. Neither the official
>> >delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the
>> >Hague Conference on Climate Change (CO6) (November 2000) have raised
>> >the broad issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification
>> >techniques (ENMOD)" as relevant to an understanding of climate change.
>> >
>> >The clash between official negotiators, environmentalists and
>> >American business lobbies has centered on Washington's outright
>> >refusal to abide by commitments on carbon dioxide reduction targets
>> >under the 1997 Kyoto protocol.(1) The impacts of military
>> >technologies on the World's climate are not an object of discussion
>> >or concern. Narrowly confined to greenhouse gases, the ongoing debate
>> >on climate change serves Washington's strategic and defense
>> >objectives.
>> >
>> >"WEATHER WARFARE"
>> >
>> >World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that "US
>> >military scientists ... are working on weather systems as a potential
>> >weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting
>> >of vapor rivers in the Earth's atmosphere to produce targeted
>> >droughts or floods." (2) Already in the 1970s, former National
>> >Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book
>> >"Between Two Ages" that:
>> >
>> >"Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations,
>> >techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare
>> >minimum of the security forces need be appraised... [T]echniques of
>> >weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods
>> >of drought or storm."
>> >
>> >Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several
>> >types of "unconventional weapons" using radio frequencies. He refers
>> >to "weather war," indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had
>> >already "mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate
>> >changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s."(3) These
>> >technologies make it "possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by
>> >using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves]." (4)
>> >
>> >A simulation study of future defense "scenarios" commissioned for the
>> >US Air Force calls for:
>> >
>> >"US aerospace forces to 'own the weather' by capitalizing on emerging
>> >technologies and focusing development of those technologies to
>> >war-fighting applications... From enhancing friendly operations or
>> >disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural
>> >weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and
>> >counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a
>> >wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary... In
>> >the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of
>> >national security policy with both domestic and international
>> >applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on
>> >its interests, at various levels.(5)
>> >
>> >HIGH-FREQUENCY ACTIVE AURORAL RESEARCH PROGRAM (HAARP)
>> >
>> >The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in
>> >Gokoma Alaska --jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy--
>> >is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US
>> >Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force
>> >Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a
>> >system of powerful antennas capable of creating "controlled local
>> >modifications of the ionosphere". Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich
>> >--actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP-- describes
>> >HAARP as:
>> >
>> >"A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of
>> >the ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam and
>> >heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto
>> >earth and penetrate everything -- living and dead." (6)
>> >
>> >Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as "a gigantic heater that can
>> >cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes,
>> >but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly
>> >radiation from bombarding the planet." 7
>> >
>> >MISLEADING PUBLIC OPINION
>> >
>> >HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific
>> >and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest,
>> >however, that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the ionosphere
>> >for Department of Defense purposes." (8) Without explicitly referring
>> >to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of
>> >"induced ionospheric modifications" as a means of altering weather
>> >patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar.9
>> >
>> >According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, HAARP is part of a integrated
>> >weapons' system, which has potentially devastating environmental
>> >consequences:
>> >
>> >"It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly
>> >destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere.
>> >It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory
>> >construction which is separately being planned by the United States.
>> >HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and
>> >development of a deliberate military nature. The military
>> >implications of combining these projects is alarming. ... The ability
>> >of the HAARP/Spacelab/rocket combination to deliver very large
>> >amounts of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth
>> >via laser and particle beams, is frightening. The project is likely
>> >to be "sold" to the public as a space shield against incoming
>> >weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone
>> >layer. (10)
>> >
>> >In addition to weather manipulation, HAARP has a number of related uses:
>> >
>> >"HAARP could contribute to climate change by intensively bombarding
>> >the atmosphere with high-frequency rays... Returning low-frequency
>> >waves at high intensity could also affect people's brains, and
>> >effects on tectonic movements cannot be ruled out. (11)
>> >
>> >More generally, HAARP has the ability of modifying the World's
>> >electro-magnetic field. It is part of an arsenal of "electronic
>> >weapons" which US military researchers consider a "gentler and kinder
>> >warfare". (12)
>> >
>> >WEAPONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER
>> >
>> >HAARP is part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order under the
>> >Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). From military command points in
>> >the US, entire national economies could potentially be destabilized
>> >through climatic manipulations. More importantly, the latter can be
>> >implemented without the knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and
>> >without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a
>> >conventional war.
>> >
>> >The use of HAARP -- if it were to be applied -- could have
>> >potentially devastating impacts on the World's climate. Responding to
>> >US economic and strategic interests, it could be used to selectively
>> >modify climate in different parts of the World resulting in the
>> >destabilization of agricultural and ecological systems.
>> >
>> >It is also worth noting that the US Department of Defense has
>> >allocated substantial resources to the development of intelligence
>> >and monitoring systems on weather changes. NASA and the Department of
>> >Defense's National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) are working on
>> >"imagery for studies of flooding, erosion, land-slide hazards,
>> >earthquakes, ecological zones, weather forecasts, and climate change"
>> >with data relayed from satellites. (13)
>> >
>> >POLICY INERTIA OF THE UNITED NATIONS
>> >
>> >According to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
>> >signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:
>> >
>> >"States have... in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
>> >and the principles of international law, the (...) responsibility to
>> >ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not
>> >cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond
>> >the limits of national jurisdiction." (14)
>> >
>> >It is also worth recalling that an international Convention ratified
>> >by the UN General Assembly in 1997 bans "military or other hostile
>> >use of environmental modification techniques having widespread,
>> >long-lasting or severe effects." (15) Both the US and the Soviet
>> >Union were signatories to the Convention. The Convention defines
>> >"'environmental modification techniques' as referring to any
>> >technique for changing--through the deliberate manipulation of
>> >natural processes--the dynamics, composition or structure of the
>> >earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere
>> >or of outer space." (16)
>> >
>> >Why then did the UN --disregarding the 1977 ENMOD Convention as well
>> >as its own charter-- decide to exclude from its agenda climatic
>> >changes resulting from military programs?
>> >
>> >EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ACKNOWLEDGES IMPACTS OF HAARP
>> >
>> >In February 1998, responding to a report of Mrs. Maj Britt Theorin
>> >--Swedish MEP and longtime peace advocate--, the European
>> >Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense
>> >Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program.(17) The
>> >Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European
>> >Parliament:
>> >
>> >"Considers HAARP... by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the
>> >environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal,
>> >ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an
>> >international independent body...; [the Committee] regrets the
>> >repeated refusal of the United States Administration... to give
>> >evidence to the public hearing ...into the environmental and public
>> >risks [of] the HAARP program." (18).
>> >
>> >The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the
>> >environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually
>> >dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the
>> >required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment
>> >and defense". (19) Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with
>> >Washington.
>> >
>> >FULLY OPERATIONAL
>> >
>> >While there is no concrete evidence of HAARP having been used,
>> >scientific findings suggest that it is at present fully operational.
>> >What this means is that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US
>> >military to selectively modify the climate of an "unfriendly nation"
>> >or "rogue state" with a view to destabilizing its national economy.
>> >
>> >Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are
>> >already in crisis as a result of New World Order policies including
>> >market deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. Amply documented, IMF
>> >and World Bank "economic medicine" imposed on the Third World and the
>> >countries of the former Soviet bloc has largely contributed to the
>> >destabilization of domestic agriculture. In turn, the provisions of
>> >the World Trade Organization (WTO) have supported the interests of a
>> >handful of Western agri-biotech conglomerates in their quest to
>> >impose genetically modified (GMO) seeds on farmers throughout the
>> >World.
>> >
>> >It is important to understand the linkage between the economic,
>> >strategic and military processes of the New World Order. In the above
>> >context, climatic manipulations under the HAARP program (whether
>> >accidental or deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these changes
>> >by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure and
>> >potentially triggering the bankruptcy of farmers over vast areas.
>> >Surely national governments and the United Nations should address the
>> >possible consequences of HAARP and other "non-lethal weapons" on
>> >climate change.
>> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >NOTES
>> >
>> >1. The latter calls for nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
>> >an average of 5.2 percent to become effective between 2008 and 2012.
>> >See Background of Kyoto Protocol at
>> >http://www.globalwarming.net/gw11.html .
>> >
>> >2. The Times, London, 23 November 2000.
>> >
>> >3. Intelligence Newsletter, December 16, 1999.
>> >
>> >4. Ibid.
>> >
>> >5 Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report,
>> >http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ (emphasis added).
>> >
>> >6 Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning, The Military's Pandora's Box,
>> >Earthpulse Press, http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html . See
>> >also the HAARP home page at http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
>> >
>> >7. See Briarpatch, January, 2000. (emphasis added).
>> >
>> >8 Quoted in Begich and Manning, op cit.
>> >
>> >9. Air University, op cit.
>> >
>> >10. Rosalie Bertell, Background of the HAARP Program, 5 November,
>> >1996, http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/weapons.htm
>> >
>> >11. Begich and Manning, op cit.
>> >
>> >12. Don Herskovitz, Killing Them Softly, Journal of Electronic
>> >Defense, August 1993. (emphasis added). According to Herskovitz,
>> >"electronic warfare" is defined by the US Department of Defense as
>> >"military action involving the use of electromagnetic energy..." The
>> >Journal of Electronic Defense at http://www.jedefense.com/ has
>> >published a range of articles on the application of electronic and
>> >electromagnetic military technologies.
>> >
>> >13. Military Space, 6 December, 1999.
>> >
>> >14. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992. See
>> >complete text at http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.html ,
>> >(emphasis added).
>> >
>> >15. See Associated Press, 18 May 1977.
>> >
>> >16. Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States
>> >Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27.
>> >
>> >17. European Report, 7 February 1998.
>> >
>> >18. European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and
>> >Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999.
>> >
>> >19. EU Lacks Jurisdiction to Trace Links Between Environment and
>> >Defense, European Report, 3 February 1999.
>> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, CRG 2002. All rights reserved.
>> >Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community
>> >internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright
>> >note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms
>> >contact the CRG at editor@globalresearch.ca .
>> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >The URL of this article is:
>> >http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html
>>
>>
>
>