Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Another Excellent Question For My American Readers: WHY Does The US Target Functioning Democracies For Regime Change?

*I have been a bit under the weather these last few days... And as of now on the road to recovery.... As usual, I seem to always be playing "catch up" on what is happening around our world these days... Thanks everyone for their patience as usual..

Everywhere we look across the planet these days we see wars breaking out and in each case the United States is always heavily involved..... A great example is of course in the Middle East, where the US is sticking its nose into the innocent nation of Syria where the reality is that they have no damn business being in there in the first place.... It has long puzzled me as to what exactly is the goal of the US in Syria especially now that the good guys, the Syrian government forces and their allies, have been achieving victory after victory over the scourge known as "ISIS" and are about to free their nation for the Syrian people.....

Well, apparently there are other authors out there that are just as puzzled as I am, and right now I want to present one article from Darius Shahtahmasebi, that comes from "The Anti Media" website, at, that asks the hard question that everyone, and especially my American readers, should be asking themselves:  "Why Does The US Target Functioning Democracies For Regime Change?"..... I have that article right here for everyone to read and ponder for themselves, and of course my own thoughts and comments to follow:

Why Does the US Target Functioning Democracies for Regime Change?

June 19, 2017 at 2:43 pm
Written by Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) — U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently admitted that America’s official foreign policy includes a regime-change operation in Iran. The CIA has created an office for this sole purpose, tasking Michael D’Andrea — also known as the Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike — with leading this operation.

Iran just had an election in May, and voter turnout was as high as 70 percent. Even prisoners wereallowed to vote, something so-called moderate democratic countries like New Zealand disallow.

In contrast, voter turnout in the 2016 U.S. elections was around 58 percent, and support for Donald Trump’s impeachment is now higher than support for his presidency.

Though Iran is hardly democratic by Western standards given the stringent requirements for becoming a political candidate in the first place, it is still vastly more democratic than most of America’s closest allies in the region. According to a U.S. State Department document:

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the Al Saud family…The following significant human rights problems were reported: no right to change the government peacefully; torture and physical abuse; poor prison and detention center conditions; arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention; denial of fair and public trials and lack of due process in the judicial system; political prisoners; restrictions on civil liberties such as freedoms of speech (including the Internet), assembly, association, movement, and severe restrictions on religious freedom; and corruption and lack of government transparency. Violence against women and a lack of equal rights for women, violations of the rights of children, trafficking in persons, and discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, sect, and ethnicity were common. The lack of workers’ rights, including the employment sponsorship system, remained a severe problem.”[emphasis added]

Despite this grim reality, Saudi Arabia remains a close U.S. ally while Iran is being targeted for regime change even though the Iranian people just elected a popular reformist government on their own — without American interference.
In 1953, the Iranian people democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh immediately posed a threat to the U.S. and British economic interests in the region, and the CIA worked with the British to topple him and replace him with a brutal dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Accordingto the Guardian:

“Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.” [emphasis added]

The idea that America’s interests and priorities have changed over half a century later is clearly untenable considering the current American president has openly suggested that America should seize Iraq’s oil as “reimbursement.”

In 2011, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — together with Britain’s David Cameron and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy — told us the world needed to bomb Libya to save the country from a massacre. Never mind that under Gaddafi, the people of Libya had state-sponsored healthcare, education, subsidized housing and transport and enjoyed the highest standard of living in the entire region. Never mind that Sarkozy was being investigated for accepting 50 million euros from Gaddafi himself for his 2007 presidential campaign.

Never mind that Libya actually had a fully functioning democratic system that allowed for decision-making at the local level. As Counterpunch has explained:

“Far from control being in the hands of one man, Libya was highly decentralized and divided into several small communities that were essentially ‘mini-autonomous States’ within a State. These autonomous States had control over their districts and could make a range of decisions including how to allocate oil revenue and budgetary funds. Within these mini autonomous States, the three main bodies of Libya’s democracy were Local Committees, Basic People’s Congresses and Executive Revolutionary Councils.”

This system was no secret to the mainstream media, as further explained by Counterpunch:

“In 2009, Mr. Gaddafi invited the New York Times to Libya to spend two weeks observing the nation’s direct democracy. The New York Times, [which] has traditionally been highly critical of Colonel Gaddafi’s democratic experiment, conceded that in Libya, the intention was that ‘everyone is involved in every decision…Tens of thousands of people take part in local committee meetings to discuss issues and vote on everything from foreign treaties to building schools.’”

Was Gaddafi a brutal leader who tortured and oppressed his own people? Most probably.

Is the Iranian government a brutal theocratic regime that also oppresses its own people? Almost certainly.

However, America’s concerns with these countries are not rooted in goals of promoting “freedom” or “democracy.” These countries already had democratic institutions that worked more or less effectively.

As the Times notes, Libya’s health care system was “once the envy of the region.” Now, Libya isn’t the envy of anything. Thousands of people are dying trying to flee the country.

Iran already had democracy before the U.S. overthrew it in favor of a monarch in 1953. Now, the U.S is attempting the same strategy with full knowledge that ISIS-inspired Sunni movements are the types of elements currently exerting pressure on the Iranian government.

There is a reason why “spreading democracy” is no longer an official explanation for America’s military adventures in the Middle East: that claim is a complete (and unbelievable) lie.

It’s time to call this strategy out for what it is – an unnecessary, baseless, undemocratic, rights-abusing neoconservative agenda that will see the region explode as countless more lives are lost in the near future.

Iran poses no tangible threat to the United States — and neither did Libya in 2011. Overthrowing the Iranian government will not lead to stability or security and has no legal basis in the first place, something the mainstream media and the international community rarely discuss.

All of this poses the question: why is the U.S. targeting functioning democracies for regime change and siding with dictatorships across the globe?

Do democracies pose a threat to the United States? The United States seems to think so.

In this context, it may not be a surprise to learn that a study from Princeton and Northwestern University contended that the U.S. is not a democracy, but rather, an oligarchy that serves the interests of the rich and powerful while ignoring the majority of its people.

NTS Notes:  When I see that question being asked, I cannot help but to have that gnawing sick feeling that the US has no interests in "democracy" at all in its true form, but seeks to overthrow functioning democracies for their own lust for those nations' natural resources, and of course and especially in regards to the functioning democracies in the Middle East, to aid their masters in Israel for that sick and twisted state's lust for territorial expansion aka the "Greater Israel" project....

Yes, when this question is asked, we can point directly at the innocent nation of Syria, that has been indeed a functioning democracy where the people have in fact so many rights and freedoms compared to the sick and twisted kingdom of Saudi Arabia..... But we all know by now that Syria was put in the crosshairs of the fraud of "regime change" the moment Bashar al-Assad said NO to the US lust to have pipelines strewn across its territory..... AND we can thank that horrific monster, Killary Clinton, herself for pushing for the creation of "ISIS" as the weapon of choice for that regime change....

The reality is that this fraud of "regime change" has always been the policy of the US administration... The US has been an empire now for at least the last 1/2 century and they want to make sure that no nations escape their grip... Therefore when any nation does not obey their American masters' demands and attempts to free themselves from the empire, they are instantly slated for this fraud "regime change" and the US government goes to work to make that change happen....

More to come


1 comment:


As an "American" I can vouch for the absolute accuracy of the last paragraph of the quoted article and the first one of your comments.

In reality the USA has always been something of a "Jeckle and Hyde" phenomenon. But what has happened now is the Hyde personality has completely taken over. The present ZioAmerican Empire IS a criminal enterprise, first, last, and always. Brigands, for that is who is running things now don't like democracy as the term is commonly understood. What these gangsters mean by "Freedom and Democracy" is that they demand the freedom to enslave, oppress, and exploit everybody else for their own personal benefit. Republicans and Democrats are just rival factions within the governing criminal syndicate.

These thieving murdering bastards need to be brought to justice by somebody. Until and unless they are stopped they are only going to wax worse and worse and nobody is going to be safe.

The "Founding Fathers", especially Thomas Jefferson, foresaw the likelihood of something like this happening. That was why the States originally controlled Militias that answered to the Citizenry (Actually they were the Citizenry.) threw their Elected Governors. When Washington ceased to function in a Democratic fashion the American People had a means of freeing themselves from its tyranny. This setup was ended by the Second American Revolution (What most know as the American Civil War.) This was the first unequivocal step on the road to the present day Empire.

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution which guarantees the peoples right to keep and bear arms WAS PRIMARYLY COCERNED with guaranteeing the existence of these State Militias composed of the Citizens themselves. In reality according to the original intent of the Amendment it has been a dead letter since "The War". True, most Americans are armed to the teeth, but it is more like a collection of potential armed mobs than it is like a Peoples Militia as the "Founding Fathers' intended.