A Brief History Of The Rothschild Banking Family

1

You may not know it, but the Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family, has been hidden behind the curtains of civilization pulling the strings on almost every ill inflicted on western society for over 200 years.


2

1763: The founding of the House of Rothschild and the New World Order by Meyer Amschel Bauer who was taught by his father, a banker. Amschel Moses Bauer taught his son, Meyer, everything about moneylending and finance. Meyer then went to work for the Oppenhiemer’s bank.


3

He found much success in this endeavor and later returned home, purchased his father’s business and renamed it Rothschild aka “Red Shield” in German.


4

Working with the Oppenhiemers, Meyer Rothschild learned that lending money to governments was more profitable than lending to individuals – AT INTEREST!


5

Towards the end of Meyer’s life, he sends his 5 sons Nathan, Salomon, Anselm, Carl and James to different countries across Europe to establish family banks.


6

Salomon was sent to Austria, Carl traveled to Italy, James to France, Nathan to London and Anslem stayed in Frankfurt, Germany. This was accurately depicted in the 1934 Hollywood movie ‘The House of Rothschild’.


7

To this day, the Rothschild family remains the dominant and commanding force behind Globalism, Zionism, phony environmentalism (the “Global Warming” scam) and Liberalism.


8

1774: The British Currency Act is introduced which forbids the American colonies from issuing their own debt-free currency.


9

A combination of the Tea Act of 1773, the Currency Act and the Boston Massacre sparked a revolutionary spirit throughout the colonies.


10

The Rothschilds finance the British resistance while Jewish money-lender Haym Salomon funds the American Revolution.

This conflict greatly weakened both sides, leaving both vulnerable for future takeovers and heavily in debt.


11

In 1776, the Jew Adam Weishaupt establishes ‘The Illuminati’ which was a secret society for wealthy socialites.

They disbanded in 1784. Weishaupt was an acquaintance of the Rothschild family and was funded by them. In secret, they plotted to further their New World Order agenda.


12

1789: The French Revolution overthrows the Monarchy of France. King Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette & 40,000 others are killed by Jacobans.

British historian Nesta Webster, indicates a “foreign” source funding the Jacobans with hopes of starting “worldwide revolution.”


13

Throughout the years of 1798 – 1815 Rothschild banks are established all across Europe. The brothers had succeeded in their mission.


14

1790: Thomas Jefferson & Alexander Hamilton clash over the 1st Bank. Hamilton wins and the First Central Bank of America is founded.

Alexander Hamilton was a New York banker, educated in a Jewish school and founder of the 1st Bank of America – a clear Rothschild agent.


15

1799: The Rothschilds encounter their first major obstacle for world financial conquest – the French revolutionary leader Napoleon Bonaparte.


16

When Nathan Rothschild heard of Napoleon’s return from exile, he instructed his workers to start selling bonds on the Stock market.

This caused everyone to believe Napoleon had won and so proceeded to sell everything they had off in the Stock market too. 1934 film below.


17

However, when Nathan heard of the victory at Waterloo through carrier pigeon, he bought up everything at the Stock market at rock bottom prices.

This is something that is VITAL to understand. This is how the Rothschilds bought up Britain.


18

1811: The Bank of America’s 20 year charter is about to expire. President James Madison refuses to renew the charter as he disliked the central banking system. Britain soon threatens war.


19

1814: The Rothschild financed war brought British forces to Washington D.C to protest the expiration of the bank. They burn the White House.


20

Eventually, a storm extinguishes the fire and both countries makes peace through negotiations. In 1816, the 2nd Central Bank is established. America now once again belongs to the Rothschilds. Within just 3 years, the Bank creates its first panic known as the Panic of 1819.


21

The Panic of 1825 is engineered by the Bank of England. Throughout 1832-35, President Andrew Jackson battles with Bank boss Nicholas Biddle.

Andrew Jackson runs his entire campaign on “killing the bank” and kill the Bank he later did.


22

1835: Jackson pays off the National debt and closes the Central Bank. The Rothschilds now begin assassinations attempts on Jackson. All attempts on Jackson’s life ultimately fail.


23

In 1836, the 2nd Central Bank of America is finally killed, and America will remain free of Rothschild clutches until 1913 when the bill for the Federal Reserve was passed.


24

Little known fact: Karl Marx, a German Jew and author of ‘The Communist Manifesto’, was related to the Rothschild family through marriage.


25

1840-1880: 7 assassination attempts are carried out against Queen Victoria. This sends a message of intimidation to the Royal Family.

To this day, the Rothschild’s banking dynasty is run from the financial district ‘The City of London.’ The Queen does not dare confront them.


26

The Rothschilds financed BOTH sides during the American Civil War. The aim was to weaken both sides, afterwards taking control of America and consolidate power in Britain.


27

1865: President Abraham Lincoln is assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. He defied the Rothschilds by printing debt-free money called ‘Greenbacks.’


28

1881: American President James Garfield is shot and later dies from the infected wound. Garfield despised the bankers. Another assassination?


29

1881: Communist Reds finally assassinate Russia’s Czar Alexander II after SEVERAL failed attempts. The Rothschilds are now after Russia, as their money supply remains free of their control. Multiple attempts were also made on Kaiser Wilhelm’s life.


30

1894: The Communist Reds kill the popular French President Marie Francois Sadi Carnot. He was close friends with Czar Alexander III.


31

1897: Communist Reds kill Spanish Prime Minister Antonio Canovas. 1898: Communist Reds kill Elisabeth of Austria. Both were popular, nationalistic leaders that were not interested in co-operating with the money-lenders.


32

The blood-lust of the violent Communist Reds inspired to act on propaganda can be seen today with the Antifa movement who can be described as modern day Reds. “Foot soldiers of the Rothschilds” if you will.


33

So we approach the 20th Century! This has been but a mini-compilation of events of the Rothschilds from inception to 1900. If you want a more comprehensive read then please read the book duology ‘Planet Rothschild’ which is an epic chronology of events.


34

For the Rothschilds, the 20th Century was a pivotal time that saw their most success but also their mightiest of obstacles. The most monumental was the German leader Adolf Hitler.


35

Let’s get a silly myth of the way – that Hitler was a Rothschild agent. This bizarre conspiracy theory is ludicrous and holds no weight. Hitler ARRESTED a Rothschild for his banking practices.


36

Adolf Hitler and the rise of Fascism in Europe w/ Benito Mussolini of Italy, Oswald Mosley of Britain and Corneliu Zelea Condreanu of Romania, was a major threat to the Rothschild’s New World Order. National Socialism/Fascism was sweeping across all of Europe.


 

The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

Globalizing Imperialism: The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel.

Global Research Editor’s Note:

This important analysis and review of US military might by award winning Canadian geographer Professor Jules Dufour, was first published by Global Research in 2007. Jules Dufour passed away after a long illness in August 2017. 

US military presence around the World has expanded dramatically in the course of the last five years.  This study is largely based on data for the period 2001-2005.

The Worldwide control of humanity’s economic, social and political activities is under the helm of US corporate and military power. Underlying this process are various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. These US sponsored strategies ultimately consist in a process of global subordination.


Where is the Threat?

The 2000 Global Report published in 1980 had outlined “the State of the World” by focusing on so-called  “level of threats” which might negatively influence or undermine US interests.

Twenty years later, US strategists, in an attempt to justify their military interventions in different parts of the World, have conceptualized the greatest fraud in US history, namely “the Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT). The latter, using a fabricated pretext  constitutes a global war against all those who oppose US hegemony. A modern form of slavery, instrumented through militarization and the “free market” has unfolded.

Major elements of the conquest and world domination strategy by the US refer to:

1) the control of the world economy and its financial markets,

2) the taking over of all natural resources (primary resources and nonrenewable sources of energy). The latter constitute the cornerstone of US power through the activities of its multinational corporations.

Geopolitical Outreach: Network of Military Bases

The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of  an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain.

Known and documented from information in the public domaine including Annual Reports of the US Congress, we have a fairly good understanding of the strucuture of US military expenditure, the network of US military bases and  the shape of this US military-strategic configuration in different regions of the World.

The objective of this article is to build a summary profile of the World network of military bases, which are under the jurisdiction and/or control  of the US. The spatial distribution of these military bases will be examined together with an analysis of the multibillion dollar annual cost of their activities.

In a second section of this article, Worldwide popular resistance movements directed against US military bases and their various projects will be outlined. In a further article we plan to analyze the military networks of other major nuclear superpowers including  the United Kingdom, France and Russia.


I. The Military Bases

Military bases are conceived for training purposes, preparation and stockage of military equipment, used by national armies throughout the World. They are not very well known in view of the fact that they are not open to the public at large. Even though they take on different shapes, according to the military function for which they were established; they can broadly be classified under four main categories :

a) Air Force Bases (see photos 1 and 2);

b) Army or Land Bases;

c) Navy Bases and

d) Communication and Spy Bases.

Photo 1. Air Base of Diego Garcia located in the Indian Ocean

Photo 2. Diego Garcia. An Aerial View of two B-52 and six Kc-a135

II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War’”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).

Map 1. U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World. The Cost of «Permanent War» and Some Comparative Data

Source: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=884

Map 2. The American Military Bases Around the World (2001-2003)

Source : http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/index.htm

Source : http://www.nobases.org

Map 3 US Military Bases Click here to see Map 3

The Map of the World Network “No Bases” (Map 3) reveals the following:

Based on a selective examination of military bases in North America, Latin America, Western Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Japan, several of these military bases are being used for intelligence purposes. New selected sites are Spy Bases and Satellite-related Spy Bases.

The Surface of the Earth is Structured as a Wide Battlefield

These military bases and installations of various kinds are distributed according to a Command structure divided up into five spatial units and four unified Combatant Commands (Map 4). Each unit is under the Command of a General.

The Earth surface  is being conceived as a wide battlefield which can be patrolled or steadfastly supervised from the Bases.

Map 4. The World and Territories Under the Responsibility of a Combatant Command or Under a Command Structure

Source : http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2009/0109_unifiedcommand

Territories under a Command are: the Northern Command (NORTHCOM) (Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado), the Pacific Command (Honolulu, Hawaii), the Southern Command (Miami, Florida – Map 5), The Central Command (CENTCOM) (MacDill Air Force Base, Florida), the European Command (Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Germany), the Joint Forces Command (Norfolk, Virginia), the Special Operations Command (MacDill Air Force Base, Florida), the Transportation Command (Scott Air Force Base, Illinois) and the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) (Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska).

Map 5. The Southern Command

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapabases.htm

NATO Military Bases

The Atlantic Alliance (NATO) has its own Network of military bases, thirty in total. The latter are primarily located in Western Europe:

Whiteman, U.S.A., Fairford,
Lakenheath and Mildenhall in United Kingdom,
Eindhoven in Netherlands,
Brüggen, Geilenkirchen, Landsberg, Ramstein, Spangdahlem, Rhein-Main in Germany,
Istres and Avord in France.
Morón de la Frontera and Rota in Spain,
Brescia, Vicenza, Piacenza, Aviano, Istrana, Trapani, Ancora, Pratica di Mare, Amendola, Sigonella, Gioia dell Colle, Grazzanise and Brindisi in Italy,
Tirana in Albania,
Incirlik in Turkey,
Eskan Village in Soudi Arabia and
Ali al Salem in Koweit (http://www.terra.es/actualidad/articulo/html/act52501.html)

III. The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

There are 6000  military bases and/ or military warehouses located in the U.S. (See Wikipedia, February 2007).

Total Military Personnel is of the order of  1,4 million of which 1,168,195 are in the U.S and US overseas territories.

Taking figures from the same source, there are 325,000 US military personnel in foreign countries:

800 in Africa,
97,000 in Asia (excluding the Middle East and Central Asia),
40,258 in South Korea,
40,045 in Japan,
491 at the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean,
100 in the Philippines, 196 in Singapore,
113 in Thailand,
200 in Australia,
and 16,601 Afloat.

In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,603 who are stationed in Germany.

In Central Asia about 1,000 are stationed at the Ganci (Manas) Air Base in Kyrgyzstan and 38 are located at Kritsanisi, in Georgia, with a mission to train Georgian soldiers.

In the Middle East (excludng the Iraq war theater) there are 6,000 US military personnel, 3,432 of whom are in Qatar and 1,496 in Bahrain.

In the Western Hemisphere, excluding the U.S. and US territories, there are 700 military personnel in Guantanamo, 413 in Honduras and 147 in Canada.

Map 3 provides information regarding military personnel on duty, based on a regional categorization (broad regions of the world). The total number of military personnel at home in the U.S. and/or in US Territories is 1,139,034. There are 1,825 in Europe 114, 660, 682 in Subsaharian Africa, 4, 274 in the Middle East and Southern Asia, 143 in the Ex-USSR, and 89,846 in the Pacific.

IV. The Operational Cost of the Worldwide Military Network

US defense spending (excluding the costs of the Iraq war) have increased from 404 in 2001 to 626 billion dollars in 2007 according to data from the Washington based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. US defense spending is expected to reach 640 billion dollars in 2008.

(Figure 1 and http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002244.php ).

These 2006 expenses correspond to 3.7% of the US GDP and $935.64 per capita   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of-the_United_States).

Figure 1. U.S. Military Expenditures since 1998

Source : http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

According to Fig 1, the 396 billion dollars military budget proposed in 2003 has in fact reached 417.4 billion dollars, a 73% increase compared to 2000 (289 billion dollars). This outlay for 2003 was more than half of the total of the US discretionary budget.

Since 2003, these military expenditures have to be added to those of the Iraq war and occupation The latter reached in March 2007, according to the National Priorities Project, a cumulative total of 413 billion dollars.

(http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/jdi050504_1_n.shtml),

(http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182).

Estimates of the Defense Department budget needs, made public in 2006 in the DoD Green Book for FY 2007 are of the order of  440 billion dollars.
(http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/index.html)

Military and other staff required numbered 1,332,300. But those figures do not include the money required for the “Global World on Terrorism” (GWOT). In other words, these figures largely pertain to the regular Defense budget.

A Goldstein of the Washington Post, within the framework of an article on the aspects of the National 2007 budget titled «2007 Budget Favors Defense», wrote about this topic:

“Overall, the budget for the 2007 fiscal year would further reshape the government in the way the administration has been striving to during the past half-decade: building up military capacity and defenses against terrorist threats on U.S. soil, while restraining expenditures for many domestic areas, from education programs to train service”

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401179.html).

V. US Military Bases to Protect Strategic Energy Resources

In the wake of 9/11, Washington initiated its “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Other countries, which were not faithfully obeying Washington’s directives including Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela have been earmarked for possible US military intervention.

Washington keeps a close eye on countries opposed to US corporate control over their resources. Washington also targets countries where there are popular resistance movements directed against US interests, particularly in South America. In this context, President Bush made a quick tour to Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico «to promote democracy and trade» but also with a view to ultimately curbing and restraining popular dissent to the US interests in the region. .

(http://www.voanews.com/spanish/2007-03-08-voa1.cfm)

The same broad approach is being applied in Central Asia. According to Iraklis Tsavdaridis, Secretary of the World Peace Council (WPC):

“The establishment of U.S. military bases should not of course be seen simply in terms of direct military ends. They are always used to promote the economic and political objectives of U.S. capitalism. For example, U.S. corporations and the U.S. government have been eager for some time to build a secure corridor for US.-controlled oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea in Central Asia through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. This region -has more than 6 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and almost 40 percent of its gas reserves. The war in Afghanistan and the creation of U.S. military Bases in Central Asia are viewed as a key opportunity to make such pipelines a reality.”

(http://stopusa.be/campaigns/texte.php?section=FABN&langue=3&id=24157 ).

The US. are at War in Afghanistan and Iraq. They pursue these military operations until they reach their objective which they call “VICTORY”. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployment_of-the_U.S.-Military), American troops fighting in these countries number 190,000.  The “Enduring Freedom” Operation in Iraq alone has almost 200,000 military personnel, including 26,000 from other countries participating to the US sponsored “Mission”. About 20,000 more could join other contingents in the next few months. In Afghanistan, a total of 25,000 soldiers participate to the operation (Map 6 and Map 7).

Map  6.  Petroleum and International Theatre of War in the Middle East and Central Asia

Source : Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, Global Research, 2003

Source : http://www.heartland.it/

Map 8. Oil Fields in Latin America

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

VI. Military Bases Used for the Control of Strategic Renewable Resources

US Military Bases in foreign countries, are mainly located in Western Europe: 26 of them are in Germany, 8, in Great Britain, and 8 in Italy. There are nine military installations in Japan (Wikepedia).

In the last few years, in the context of the GWOT, the US haa built 14 new bases in and around the Persian Gulf.

It is also involved in construction and/or or reinforcement of 20 bases (106 structured units as a whole) in Iraq, with costs  of the order of 1.1 billion dollars in that country alone (Varea, 2007) and the use of about ten bases in Central Asia.

The US has also undertaken continued negotiations with several countries to install, buy, enlarge or rent an addional number of military bases. The latter pertain inter alia to installations in Morocco, Algeria, Mali, Ghana, Brazil and Australia (See Nicholson, B., 2007), Poland, Czech Republic (Traynor, I., 2007), Ouzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Kirghizstan, Italy (Jucca, L., 2007) and France.

Washington has signed an agreement to build a military base in Djibouti (Manfredi, E., 2007). All these initiatives are a part of an overall plan to install a series of military bases geographically located in a West-East corridor extending from Colombia in South America, to North Africa, the Near East, Central Asia and as far as the Philippines (Johnson, C., 2004). The US bases in South American are related to the control and access to the extensive natural biological , mineral and water resources resources of the Amazon Basin. (Delgado Jara, D., 2006 and Maps 9 and 10).

Map 9. The Biological Wealth of Latin America

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

Map 10. Freshwater Resources in Latin America

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

VII. Resistance Movements

The network of US military bases is strategic, located in prcximity of traditional strategic resources including nonrenewable sources of energy. This military presence has brought about political opposition and resistance from progressive movements and antiwar activists.

Demonstrations directed against US military presence has developed in Spain, Ecuador, Italy, Paraguay, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria and in many other countries. Moreover, other long-termer resistance movements directed against US military presence have continued in South Korea, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Cuba, Europe, Japan and other locations.

The Worldwide resistance to US foreign military bases has grown during the last few years. We are dealing with an International Network for the Abolition of US Military Bases.

Such networks’ objective is to broadly pursue disarmament, demilitarization processes Worldwide as well as dismantle US military bases in foreign countries.

The NO BASES Network organizes educational campaigns to sensitize public opinion.  It also works to rehabilitate abandoned military sites, as in the case of Western Europe.

These campaigns, until 2004, had a local and national impact.

The network is now in a position to reach people Worldwide. The network itself underscores that “much can be gained from greater and deeper linkages among local and national campaigns and movements across the globe. Local groups around the world can learn and benefit from sharing information, experiences, and strategies with each other”

(http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en )

“The realisation that one is not alone in the struggle against foreign bases is profoundly empowering and motivating. Globally coordinated actions and campaigns can highlight the reach and scale of the resistance to foreign military presence around the world. With the trend of rising miniaturization and resort to the use of force around the world, there is now an urgent and compelling need to establish and strengthen an international network of campaigners, organisations, and movements working with a special and strategic focus on foreign military presence and ultimately, working towards a lasting and just system of peace»

(http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en )

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have, in this regard, created a favourable momentum, which has contributed to the reinforcement of the movement to close down US military bases in foreign countries:

“At the time of an International anti-war meeting held in Jakarta in May 2003, a few weeks after the start of the Iraq invasion, a global anti-military Bases campaign has been proposed as an action to priorize among global anti-war, justice and solidarity movements»  (http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en).

Since then, the campaign has acquired greater recognition. E-mail lists have been compiled (nousbases@lists.riseup.net  and nousbases-info@lists.riseup.net ) that permit the diffusion of the movement members experiences and information and discussion exchanges. That list now groups 300 people and organizations from 48 countries. A Web site permits also to adequately inform all Network members. Many rubrics provide highly valuable information on ongoing activities around the World.

http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en

In addition, the Network is more and more active and participates in different activities. At the World Social Forums it organized various conferences and colloquia. It was present at the European Social Forum held in Paris in 2003 and in London in 2004 as well as at the the America’s Social Forum in Ecuador in 2004, and at the Mediterranean Social Forum in Spain in 2005.

One of the major gatherings, which was held in Mumbai, India, in 2004, was within the framework of the World Social Forum. More than 125 participants from 34 countries defined the foundations of a coordinated global campaign.

Action priorities were identified, such as the determination of a global day of action aiming at underscoring major issues stemming from the existence of US military bases. The Network also held four discussion sessions at the Porto Alegre Social Forum in 2005. One of those pertained to the financing of the Network’s activities.

It is important to recall that the Network belongs to the Global Peace Movement. Justice and Peace organizations have  become more sensitized on what was at stake regarding US military bases.

Map 11. Social and Resistence Movements in Latin America

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

The Quito and Manta International Conference, Ecuador, March 2007

A Network World Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases was held at Quito and at Manta, Ecuador, from March 5 to 9 2007

(http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:SmEvQwFUeiAJ:www.abolishbases.org/pdf/CalltoEcuadorFlyer-Francais.pdf+R%C3%A9seau+mondial+des+bases+militaires&hl=fr&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=lang_fr ).

The objective of the Conference was to underscore the political, social, environmental and economic impacts of US military bases, to make known the principles of the various Anti-Bases movements and to formally build the Network, its strategies, structure and Action Plans. The main objectives of the Conference were the following:

–           Analyze the role of Foreign Military Bases and other features of military presence associated to the global dominance strategy and their impacts upon population and environment;

–           Share experiences and reinforce the built solidarity resulting from the resistance battles against Foreign military Bases around the World;

–           Reach a consensus on objectives mechanisms, on action plans, on coordination, on communication and on decision making of a Global Network for the abolition of all Foreign military Bases and of all other expressions of military presence; and

–            Establish global action plans to fight and reinforce the resistance of local people and ensure that these actions are being coordinated at the international level.

Conclusion

This article has focussed on the Worldwide development of US military power.

The US tends to view the Earth surface as a vast territory to conquer, occupy and exploit. The fact that the US Military splits the World up into geographic command units vividly illustrates this underlying geopolitical reality.

Humanity is being controlled  and enslaved by this Network of US military bases. .

The ongoing re-deployment of US troops and military bases has to be analyzed in a thorough manner if we wish to understand the nature of US interventionism  in different regions of the World.

This militarization process is characterized by armed aggression and warfare, as well as interventions called “cooperation agreements”. The latter reaffirmed America’s economic design design in the areas of trade and investment practices. Economic development is ensured through the miniaturization or the control of governments and organizations. Vast resources are thereby expended and wasted in order to allow such control to be effective, particularly  in regions which have a strategic potential in terms of wealth and resources and which are being used to consolidate the Empire’s structures and functions.

The setting up of the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases turns out to be an extraordinary means to oppose the miniaturization process of the Planet. Such Network is indispensable and its growth depends on a commitment of all the People of the World. It will be extremely difficult to mobilize them, but the ties built up by the Network among its constituent resistance movements are a positive element, which is ultimately conducive to more cohesive and coordinated battle at the World level.

The Final Declaration of the Second International Conference against Foreign Military Bases which was held in Havana in November 2005 and was endorsed by delegates from 22 countries identifies most of the major issues, which confront mankind. This Declaration constitutes a major peace initiative. It establishes  international solidarity in the process of  disarmament.


References

COMITÉ DE SURVEILLANCE OTAN. 2005. Las bases militares : un aspecto de la estrategia global de la OTAN. Intervencion del Comité Surveillance Otan en la Conferencia Internacional realizada en La Habana 7-11.11.2005. 9 pages.

DELGADO JARA, Diego. 2006. Bases de Manta, Plan Colombia y dominio de la Amazonia. Militarizacion de la Hegemonia de EE. UU. En América latina. 17 pages.

EQUIPO DE COMUNICACIÓN CONFERENCIA NO BASES. 2007. La gente del mundo no quiere bases militares extranjeras. 

GELMAN, J. 2007. Terratenientes. Rebelion. 26 de Febrero de 2007,  http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id-47353

Ghana to host US Military Base? February 26, 2006. 

JOHNSON, C.,  America’s Empire of Bases. January 2004.

JOHNSON, C.  America’s Empire of Bases. Janvier 2004 .

JOHNSON, C. 2005. The Sorrows of Empire. Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. Henry Holt, April 2005, Paperback. 389 pages.

JOHNSON, C., 2007.. 737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire.  February 19, 2007

JUCCA, L., 2007. Italians protest over U.S. base expansion. Sat Feb 17, 2007.

MANFREDI, E. 2007. Djibouti : Hôtel Corne d’Afrique, grande base américaine. Le GRAND SOIR.info. Édition du 23 mars 2007.

NEW INTERNATIONALIST. 2004. The Bases of Resistance, December 2004, Issue 374.

NICHOLSON, B. 2007. Secret New Us Spy base to Get Green Light. February 15, 2 007.

TRAYNOR, I. 2007. US EXPANDS, Builds New Military Bases in Europe.  The Guardian, anuary 22, 2007.

TSAVDARIDIS, I., 2005. Military Bases around the world and in Europe – the role of the USA and NATO. Novembre 2005. Stop USA / STOP United States of Agression.

VAREA, C., Las bases Militares de EEUU en Iraq. 4 mai 2006. Nodo50.


Websites: 

An Internet Guide to United States Military Bases Around the World :

http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/milbase.htm

APPEL A UN RASSEMBLEMENT INTERNATIONAL en Mars 2007, Équateur, Pour  l’abolition de toutes les bases militaires

Bases y Ejercicios Militares de EE.UU. El Comando Sur.

BUILDING A GLOBAL ANTI-MILITARY BASES MOVEMENT
Campana. Un mundo sin bases militares . Asemblea de Organizaciones y Movimientos contra la guerra, la OTAN y el Neoliberalismo (Madrid), Nodo50.

Challenges to the US Empire, http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/challengesindex.htm.

Washington veut installer une base militaire en Algérie. Le Quotidien d’Oran, 20 juillet 2003.

Empire? http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/index.htm

International Conference against Foreign Military Bases. Final Declaration.

[Fsmed-general] for all that are against foreign military bases:
http://www.grups.pangea.org/pipermail/fsmed-general/Week-of-Mon-20060206/001002.html

FUENTES DE AGUA EN AMÉRICA LATINA :
http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

Abdulhafeth Khrisat, Impérialisme américain et politique militaire, ,  Université Mu’tah

Interview with Chalmers Johnson, Part 1. An Empire of More Than 725 Military Bases.

Liste des bases militaires américaines dans le monde.

Major Military Bases World-Wide,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sites.htm

Military Bases Around The World, http://www.fsmitha.com/com/bases.htm

Military Bases around the world and in Europe – the role of the USA and NATO , Iraklis Tsavdaridis, Secretary of the World Peace Council (WPC) 8th November 2005, From the Greek Committee for International Detente and Peace (EEDYE), Presented on November 8, 2005 at the International Conference on Foreign Military Bases in Havana/Cuba organized by MOVPAZ :

http://stopusa.be/campaigns/texte.php?section=FABN&langue=3&id=24157

Military of the United States : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces

MOVIMIENTOS SOCIALES DE RESISTENCIA EN AMÉRICA LATINA

No a la instalacion de una base de la OTAN en Zaragoza :
http://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/article.php3?id_article=6261

OTAN – Le grand jeu des bases militaires en terre européenne :

http://www.mondialisation.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DIN20060509&articleId=2414

Protestas contra bases militares de EEUU en Espana :
http://spanish.peopledaily.com.cn/spanish/200104/02/sp20010402_46341.html

RIQUEZA DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD EN AMÉRICA LATINA

US Military Troops and Bases Around the World :
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2003/0710imperialmap.htm

U.S. Military Troops and Bases Around the World /united for peace & justice:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=884

US Military Expansion and Intervention :
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/index.htm

YACIMIENTOS PETROLEROS EN AMÉRICA LATINA :
http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapapetrol.htm

Jules Dufour is President of the United Nations Association of Canada (UNA-C) – Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean branch and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  He is Emeritus Professor of Geography at the University of  Quebec, Chicoutimi.

In 2007, Professor Jules Dufour became Chevalier de l’Ordre national du Québec, a distinction conferred by the Quebec government, for his contributions to World peace and human rights,  his numerous scholarly writings and the work he accomplished in the context of national and international commissions on issues pertaining to regional development, human rights and the protection of the environment.

Translated from the French, first published on Global Research’s French language website: www.mondialisation.ca

Putin Says New Russian Military Tech Makes US Missile System “Useless”

On March 1st, Vladimir Putin gave a bold answer to the US’s globally deployed ‘missile defense’ systems, calling the steadily growing network of NATO missile silos around Russian and Chinese territory “useless” as he claims new Russian tech turns the tides.


Fears as NATO aggressively pursues full-spectrum dominance with ‘nuclear primacy’

The concerns of Russia are caused by the dramatic improvement of an entire system of missile defense by Washington, which is taking the form of a global BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) system encircling Russia and China on all sides.

Despite various de-nuclearization treaties, over the past few decades Washington continued to develop a huge global web of military infrastructure.

What the Pentagon is going for is what it has dreamed of since the Soviets developed intercontinental ballistic missiles during the 1950’s. Weapons professionals term it Nuclear Primacy. Translated into layman’s language, Nuclear Primacy means that if one of two evenly-matched nuclear foes is able to deploy even a crude anti-ballistic missile defense system that can seriously damage the nuclear strike capacity of the other, while he launches a full-scale nuclear barrage against that foe, he has won the nuclear war.

The elite’s goal is to encircle, out-research, and push Moscow and its allies up against the wall, with an eventual assumed goal of launching a preemptive strike on the big Eastern powers, with the NATO missile shield in place to block the retaliation.

Washington’s ‘defensive’ missile systems are not defensive at all.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), had kept the balance since the dawn of the nuclear era, now Washington is pouring billions upon billions into tipping the scale in their favour.

Mutually Assured Destruction was dangerous, yes, but, in a bizarre sense, more stable than what Washington now pursues relentlessly with its Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe, Asia and globally in unilateral pursuit of US nuclear primacy.

MAD was based on the prospect of mutual nuclear annihilation with no decisive advantage for either side; it led to a world in which nuclear war had been ‘unthinkable.’ Now, the US is pursuing the possibility of nuclear war as ‘thinkable.’

“Missile defense is the missing link to a First Strike.” — Lt. Colonel Robert Bowman, former director of the Reagan US Missile Defense Program.

In his latest speech, Putin describes the strategic reality Russian military security planners face:

“The US is permitting constant, uncontrolled growth of the number of anti-ballistic missiles, improving their quality, and creating new missile launching areas. If we do not do something, eventually this will result in the complete devaluation of Russia’s nuclear potential. Meaning that all of our missiles could simply be intercepted.”

This concurs with the darker side of the military-strategic Nuclear Primacy coin, in that the side without adequate offsetting BMD anti-missile defenses loses.

As Russia watches their national security vanish with each new NATO BMD missile and radar installation, it is under growing pressure to launch a pre-emptive nuclear or other devastating strike before the window closes and the game is up. That in simple words means that far from being “defensive” as Washington claims, BMD is offensive, escalatory and destabilizing in the extreme.

Moreover, those nations blissfully deluding themselves that by granting the Pentagon rights to install BMS infrastructure, that they are buying the security umbrella of the mighty United States Armed Forces, find that they have allowed their territory to become a potential nuclear field of battle in an ever more likely confrontation between Washington and Moscow.

Dr. Robert Bowman, a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the US Air Force and former head of President Reagan’s BMD effort of the 1980’s, then dubbed derisively “Star Wars,” noted the true nature of Washington’s current ballistic missile “defense” under what is today called the Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency:

“Under Reagan and Bush I, it was the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO). Under Clinton, it became the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). Now Bush II has made it the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and given it the freedom from oversight and audit previously enjoyed only by the black programs. If Congress doesn’t act soon, this new independent agency may take their essentially unlimited budget and spend it outside of public and Congressional scrutiny on weapons that we won’t know anything about until they’re in space. In theory, then, the space warriors would rule the world, able to destroy any target on earth without warning. Will these new super weapons bring the American people security? Hardly.”

US refuses to deescalate; consistently ignoring mutual guarantees and always betraying treaties.

The fact is that Washington hides behind a NATO facade with its deployment of the European BMD, while keeping absolute US control over it. Russia’s NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin recently called the European portion of the US BMD a fig leaf for “a missile defense umbrella that says ‘Made in USA. European NATO members will have neither a button to push nor a finger to push it with.” 16

That’s clearly why Russia continues to insist on guarantees – from the United States – that the shield is not directed against Russia. Worryingly enough, to date Washington has categorically refused that. Could it be that the dear souls in Washington entrusted with maintaining world peace have gone bonkers? In any case the fact that Washington continues to tear up solemn international arms treaties and illegally proceed to install its global missile shield is basis enough for those in Moscow, Beijing or elsewhere to regard US promises, even treaties as not worth the paper they were written on.

Putin claims NATO ‘nuclear primacy’ not reached.

Putin claimed that Russia’s new generation of “invincible” military technology makes such NATO missile systems “useless”.

Putin said the new weapons include a nuclear-powered cruise missile, a laser weapon, a nuclear-powered underwater drone and a new hypersonic missile as part of a cutting edge, multi-front defensive arsenal. He claimed the US and NATO has no equivalent.

He also claimed a nuclear-powered cruise missile Russia tested several months ago has a “practically unlimited” range and high speed and maneuverability that can pierce any missile defense.

He said a high-speed underwater drone also has “intercontinental” range and can carry a nuclear warhead that could be aimed at both aircraft carriers and coastal facilities. He said its speed is at least 10 times faster than any other vessel, making it immune to enemy intercept.

Putin warned that Russia would respond in kind if it ever came under a nuclear attack, saying that:

“Yes, it will mean a global catastrophe for mankind, for the entire world. But as a citizen of Russia and the head of Russian state I would ask: What is such a world for, if there were no Russia?”


Expanding NATO arsenal encircles China and Russia.

Here are some of the more recent US military infrastructure developments:

  • The Aegis System is declared operational at the Deveselu Base in Southern Romania in 2016.
  • In late 2017 Japan purchased two Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems, planned to be operational by 2023.
  • The Aegis System, which will include SM-3 Block IIA interceptors to be positioned in Redzikowo, northern Poland, from 2018.
  • The US plans to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea this year.
  • The US-controlled BMD deployment now also includes sea-based Aegis systems in the Black Sea near Russia’s Sevastopol Naval Base, as well as possible deployment of intermediate range missiles in Black Sea and Caspian region.

“The US global missile defense system also includes five cruisers and 30 destroyers, which, as far as we know, have been deployed to regions in close proximity to Russia’s borders.” — Vladimir Putin

Putin’s March 1st speech detailed the alleged new Russian military technology (from Russia Insider):


Article: Russian Lt. General claims that “US wants to nuke Russia, China and use missile shield to prevent retaliation”.

According to Russian Lieutenant General Viktor Poznikhir, the US is surrounding Russia and China with missile defense systems in order to launch a “sudden nuclear strike” and prevent any retaliation.

The US has said recently it’s installing anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and Romania to prevent Iran from attacking Europe and in South Korea to prevent North Korea from attacking South Korea and Japan.

Poznikhir is suggesting the real reason for these systems is to allow the US to launch a nuclear strike on Russia or China and prevent either nation from retaliating, as their own nuclear missiles would be shot down by the US government’s ABM systems — at least in a best case scenario.

“The United States is pursuing global strategic domination through developing anti-ballistic missile systems capable of a sudden disarming strike against Russia and China, according to the deputy head of operations of the Russian General Staff.

There is an obvious link between Washington’s prompt global strike initiative, which seeks capability to engage “any targets anywhere in the world within one hour of the decision,” and the deployment of missile launch systems in Europe and aboard naval vessels across the globe, Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir said at a news briefing on Wednesday.

“The presence of US missile defense bases in Europe, missile defense vessels in seas and oceans close to Russia creates a powerful covert strike component for conducting a sudden nuclear missile strike against the Russian Federation,” Poznikhir explained.

While the US keeps claiming that its missile defenses are seeking to mitigate threats from rogue states, the results of computer simulations confirm that the Pentagon’s installations are directed against Russia and China, according to Poznikhir.”

RT


Putin made several comments on the US’ deployment of military infrastructure including the offensive-capable missile systems that are accompanied by significant NATO mobilization across the Russian border:

“Our Armed Forces remain the most important guarantor of our sovereignty and Russia’s territorial integrity. We will react appropriately and proportionately to the approach of NATO’s military infrastructure toward our borders, and we will not fail to notice the expansion of global missile defense systems and increases in the reserves of strategic non-nuclear precision weaponry.

“We are often told that the ABM system is a defense system. But that’s not the case. This is an offensive system; it is part of the offensive defense system of the United States on the periphery (of Russian territory).”

“Regardless of what our foreign colleagues say, we can clearly see what is actually happening: groups of NATO troops are clearly being reinforced in Eastern European states, including in the Black and Baltic seas. And the scale and intensity of operational and combat training is growing. In this regard, it is imperative to implement all planned measures to strength our nation’s defense capacity fully and on schedule, including, of course, in Crimea and Sevastopol, where essentially we need to fully recreate the military infrastructure.”

It is clear to see that the US is the primary aggressor in this equation: The graphic shows how the US is literally surrounding Russia with offensive military capabilities.
Russia annexed Crimea to help secure Black Sea region.

Trump Nuclear Posture Review.

The decision by the Russian leadership now to unveil a daunting array of its cutting-edge military technologies including nuclear-powered hypersonic cruise missiles and underwater drones was no election ploy. It was a clear and direct reply to the January 2018 State of the Union address to Congress of the US President and publication days later of their 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), and Putin says so.

The Trump 2018 NPR document is a radical shift from previous administrations. It abandons the earlier declarations of “no first use” of nuclear weapons, and boosts nuclear modernization efforts including the intention to bring on “new” nuclear weapons, restoration of submarine-launched cruise missile capability and low-explosive-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile warheads, and to sideline arms control. In one section the new US Nuclear Posture Review declares that,

“The United States would only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners. Extreme circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks…” (emphasis added-w.e.).

No definition of what Washington calls a “significant non-nuclear strategic attack” is made. In brief, as one US nuclear analyst noted, the new US nuclear doctrine is based on competition and confrontation.

After describing repeated Russian efforts with Washington to reinstate the ABM Treaty after the Bush Administration unilaterally abandoned it in 2002, Putin noted,

“At one point, I thought that a compromise was possible, but this was not to be. All our proposals, absolutely all of them, were rejected. And then we said that we would have to improve our modern strike systems to protect our security. In reply, the US said that it is not creating a global BMD system against Russia…”

That of course was a calculated strategic lie. Russia concluded, after repeated efforts at negotiation, that Washington, following the destruction of Russia’s military and economy in the 1990s Yeltsin era post-Soviet economic collapse, was determined to “pursue ultimate unilateral military advantage in order to dictate the terms in every sphere in the future.”


Blocking Nuclear Primacy: The Russian Response in Detail.

Putin unveiled for the first time measures the Russian military R&D has pursued quietly since 2002 to counter the ever-more clear US Nuclear Primacy agenda. He noted that Russia has “developed, and works continuously to perfect highly effective but modestly priced systems to overcome missile defense. They are installed on all of our intercontinental ballistic missile complexes.” However, the real new element Putin revealed is a staggering list of new advanced next generation missiles able to evade US or NATO anti-missile defenses.

First he showed a film of the new Sarmat missile. Weighing over 200 tons with a short boost phase, it is very difficult for US missile defense systems to intercept. Sarmat can be equipped with powerful nuclear warheads, including hypersonic, and the most modern means of evading missile defense. It has virtually unlimited range and capable of attack over both North and South poles.

Sarmat was only the first mentioned response to the growing NATO threat. Putin then described the Russian defense industry development of “a small-scale heavy-duty nuclear energy unit that can be installed in a missile like our latest X-101 air-launched missile or the American Tomahawk missile – a similar type but with a range dozens of times longer, dozens, basically an unlimited range. It is a low-flying stealth missile carrying a nuclear warhead, with almost an unlimited range, unpredictable trajectory and ability to bypass interception boundaries. It is invincible against all existing and prospective missile defense and counter-air defense systems.”

Then in terms of new Russian cutting-edge pilotless weapon systems, he revealed the successful development of Russian “unmanned submersible vehicles that can move at great depths (I would say extreme depths) intercontinentally, at a speed multiple times higher than the speed of submarines, cutting-edge torpedoes and all kinds of surface vessels, including some of the fastest. It is really fantastic. They are quiet, highly maneuverable and have hardly any vulnerabilities for the enemy to exploit. There is simply nothing in the world capable of withstanding them.”

Putin added that the new submersibles “can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads, which enables them to engage various targets, including aircraft groups, coastal fortifications and infrastructure.”

So much for the US doctrine of force projection supremacy via its ten aircraft carrier strike groups, which now become so many sitting ducks.

Putin went on to note that the nuclear power unit for the unmanned submersible has been tested over a period of many years, and that it is “a hundred times smaller than the units that power modern submarines, but is still more powerful and can switch into combat mode, that is to say, reach maximum capacity, 200 times faster.”

Kinzahl and Avangard

Additionally Putin unveiled the Russian hypersonic Kinzhal or Dagger system. This is as Putin describes it, “a high-precision hypersonic aircraft missile system… the only one of its kind in the world. Its tests have been successfully completed, and, moreover, on December 1 of last year, these systems began their trial service at the airfields of the Southern Military District.”

In other words it is not hypothetical, rather it is operational. The definition of hypersonic is an aircraft flying 5 or more times the speed of sound. The Kinzhal goes Mach 10 or ten times. As Putin describes it,

“The missile flying at a hypersonic speed, 10 times faster than the speed of sound, can also maneuver at all phases of its flight trajectory, which also allows it to overcome all existing and, I think, prospective anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense systems, delivering nuclear and conventional warheads in a range of over 2,000 kilometers.”

Finally, the Russian President revealed development of Avangard, a hypersonic missile that flies at speeds in excess of Mach 20:

“In moving to its target, the missile’s gliding cruise bloc engages in intensive maneuvering – both lateral (by several thousand km) and vertical. This is what makes it absolutely invulnerable to any air or missile defense system. The use of new composite materials has made it possible to enable the gliding cruise bloc to make a long-distance guided flight practically in conditions of plasma formation. It flies to its target like a meteorite, like a ball of fire. The temperature on its surface reaches 1,600–2,000 degrees Celsius but the cruise bloc is reliably guided.”

Putin’s remarks conclude with the statement, fully ignored in the West, that,

“We have repeatedly told our American and European partners who are NATO members: we will make the necessary efforts to neutralize the threats posed by the deployment of the US global missile defense system.”

He makes clear what Russia has warned Washington and NATO of since 2004:

“Despite all the problems with the economy, finances and the defense industry, Russia has remained a major nuclear power. No, nobody really wanted to talk to us about the core of the problem, and nobody wanted to listen to us. So listen now.”

One of the most succinct assessments of the Putin military revelations comes from The Saker, one of the most clear and sober commentators on Russian and Western military capabilities. In his blog the day of the Putin speech he remarked,

“It is indeed set, match and game over for the Empire: there is no more military option against Russia.”