Home


Crowdfunding Countercurrents

Submission Policy

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Defend Indian Constitution

CounterSolutions

CounterImages

CounterVideos

CC Youtube Channel

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

About Us

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name:
E-mail:

Search Our Archive



Our Site

Web

 

Order the book

A Publication
on The Status of
Adivasi Populations
of India

 

 

 

It Is Not Confusing That US Abandons Own Citizens In Yemen War-Zone
But Rescues Saudi Bombers

By Robert Barsocchini

11 March, 2015
Countercurrents.org

Most Americans have no idea any of these events are occurring or have only vague, US government/press-created notions of them, but many who are cognizant – principally the abandoned people themselves – express confusion. Why would eight countries, including Russia, China, and India, carry out risky missions to save their own citizens, as well as foreign nationals, stuck in Yemen, but the US would staunchly refuse to do so? All we ever hear from the US government and press is that the US is so incredibly good and altruistic. So, how could this be happening?

There is nothing confusing about the US government abandoning its own citizens in a war zone but rescuing and assisting Saudi bombers in the same war zone (“U.S. military assets had been used to rescue two Saudi pilots” McClatchy; Pentagon spokesman told McClatchy the US will be refueling Saudi bombers “every day from now on.”)

The recently conducted and largest study to date of who effects the actions of the US government, conducted by political scientists from Princeton and Northwestern, looked at about 1,800 US policies – essentially any policy one could imagine – and found:

“…economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

“…the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

Even back during the WWI era, politician Robert “Fighting Bob” La Follette fought to oppose “the growing dominance of corporations over the Government”. (Though he was widely hated for this stance at the time, a 1957 Senate Committee “selected La Follette as one of the five greatest U.S. Senators”.)

And Woodrow Wilson noted in his private writings:

“Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.”

Indeed, Yale political science PhD Michael Parenti notes that the American Revolution was essentially a transfer of power from monarchy to oligarchy.

Those who effect US policy have, in pursuit of their commercial and power interests, killed millions of people in the Middle East just during the last thirty years.  They continue today by (in addition to many other illegal campaigns) helping the vicious Saudi dictatorship conquer Yemen through a war of aggression and terrorism.

That the interests of most American citizens – non-elites – would have little to no impact on any of this is not only unsurprising and not confusing, but is explicitly demonstrated through meticulous study.

As many great scholars of the topic have noted, it is up to anyone who dislikes like this dynamic to change it.

Trusting Friendly Americans to Save You: A Bit of Historical Context

Additional context to alleviate confusion about the friendly American government refusing to rescue non-elite US citizens trapped in Yemen but having no issue with rescuing and assisting Saudi bombers in Yemen:

In 1792, the Moravian Delaware Indians converted to Christianity at the gunpoints of their American conquerors. 

Nonetheless, the Americans destroyed all of the Indians' food sources and, after allowing starvation to weaken them, "assured them of their sympathy in their great hunger and their intention to escort them to food and safety. Without suspicion ... the [forcibly converted] Christians agreed to go with them", and to be disarmed.

"The Christians felt safe with these friendly men whose interest in their welfare seemed genuine."

However, the Americans then bound, executed, and mutilated the corpses of these "twenty nine men, twenty seven women, and thirty four children".  

"Massacres of this sort were so numerous and routine that recording them eventually becomes numbing..."

(Stannard, American Holocaust, pg. 125/6)

 

Author is a regular contributor to Counter Currents and Washington's Blog, and writes professionally for the film industry.  Author and his UK-based colleague @_DirtyTruths






.

 

 

 




 

Share on Tumblr

 

 


Comments are moderated