OLD CONTENT
All formerly colonized countries that retain on its territory military presence by former colonial powers, while not having equivalent military presence in the territory of the former colonial powers, should still be considered colonized. The current situation:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_military_bases_of_the_United_Kingdom
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_bases_abroad
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_military_bases_of_France
Genuine decolonization should include either:
1) complete removal of all foreign military presence from one's territory;
or:
2) installation of matching military presence in the territory of all foreign countries whose military presence is permitted on one's own territory.
As for which of these options should be implemented, this must be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, as we aim for a military invasion of Israel by the same countries which previously created Israel, it would be unwise for (for example) British military bases which could be used to attack Israel to be vacated for now. Thus 2) would be preferable in such cases, at least until Israel is destroyed.
---
Oh
****:
www.businessinsider.com.au/us-military-plans-secretive-new-305-million-naval-expansion-australia-usfpi-2019-7The US military is planning a secretive new $305 million naval expansion in Australia but no one wants to talk about it
...
The US Department of Defence is considering spending $305.9 million on naval infrastructure in Darwin as it expands its presence in Australia but it doesn’t want to say what it’s going to build.
According to a drafted US Congressional bill the ABC discovered, $US211.5 is being put aside for “Navy Military Construction” in the Northern Territory capital, pending approval by US lawmakers.
However, other than outlining that “the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real property and carry out military construction projects for the installations or locations outside the United States”, the bill itself carries very few details.
The same bill also mentions proposed “military constructions” to be built predominately at points around the Pacific, including in Guam and Japan. The Darwin project is the second most expensive project in the bill, with the Guam proposal– strategically-positioned with Korea and Japan to its north and Taiwan to its west — coming in slightly higher at $327 million.
It comes as tensions simmer between the two global superpowers in the disputed South China Sea and the Pacific more broadly. Last week, a US warship sailed through the Taiwan Strait, a day after China warned it would use force to protect its interests.
If approved, the proposed Darwin project would be one of the biggest US military developments in Australia in recent years. However, despite that implication, authorities on both sides of the Pacific are reluctant to speak about the project.
“The $211.5M (USD) in the draft Congress Bill is identified against an agreed works plan under the (US Force Posture Initiatives). This funding is not yet approved,” was all that a US Defence spokesperson would tell Business Insider Australia about its plan.
It would not be drawn on what exactly it wants to build in Darwin, how long the plans had been under consideration and what level of input the Australian Defence Department has had.
It did reveal however that the Darwin proposal forms part of the US Force Posture Initiatives, a concerted effort to build $2 billion worth of defence-related infrastructure to strengthen its presence in northern Australia and “position both nations to better respond to crises in the region”, according to the Australian Department of Defence.
The Pacific Pivot is happening as we speak. It must be reversed. For more details:
authenticamericandream.blogspot.com/2018/03/countering-pacific-pivot.html
Hostility towards China must cease to be a bipartisan position. Blue candidates are in complete chaos on this subject as they try to differ from Trump on China not by proposing a different attitude towards China but instead merely by proposing alternative methods of hostility towards China:
www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/07/how-will-democrats-deal-china/594817/when all along the straightforward answer is to let hostility towards China be a Red-only position while themselves picking a target that Reds worship (e.g. Israel) to be hostile towards, thereby achieving a fully-fledged Red-Blue foreign policy polarization.
---
An informative map:
The article which features this map:
www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/us-so-weakened-in-indopacific-it-could-now-lose-war-to-china/news-story/0a1666c17140615cc67477dd2b5adc06spins it as if it is the US which is in danger by its overseas bases being within range of China's missiles, but in reality it is China which understandably feels endangered being so closely surrounded by such a ludicrously large number of bases in the first place! None of these bases should exist. If the US really is worried about its troops being hit by missiles, the best response is to withdraw all the troops!
Most importantly, the countries actually hosting the US bases have no reason to tolerate the bases, which if they were psychologically healthy should make them feel colonized. (Especially Japan, considering the country with military bases on your land is the very same country which nuked you back in WWII, and set up the bases immediately afterwards!)
---
A decent start:
www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3029751/can-beijing-take-advantage-relocation-us-troops-south-koreaThe plan to relocate American troops was drawn up in the early 2000s but has suffered repeated setbacks. However, after coming under pressure from its host to speed up the process, the US said this week it was committed to returning the bases to Seoul “as expeditiously as possible”.
In a statement released on Wednesday, US Forces Korea (USFK) said 15 of the 26 installations had been vacated and closed, and were now available for transfer to the South Korean government.
“The perception is that USFK is holding up the process when the reality is we’ve already got 15 of 26 bases and five parcels of Yongsan that are ready to be turned over to the [South Korean] government,” USFK spokesman Colonel Lee Peters was quoted as saying by US military newspaper Stars and Stripes.
11 to go. Even a single base is unacceptable. Other countries in the region should also take this opportunity to ramp up the pressure against Western military bases on their territory, using the South Korea withdrawal as a precedent.
---
www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/10/29/national/u-s-conducts-parachute-training-base-okinawa-despite-calls-cancellation-tokyo/The U.S. military conducted parachute training at its Kadena Air Base in Okinawa Prefecture on Tuesday despite the Japanese government’s call for the exercise to be canceled.
The parachute training, which was carried out from 6:40 p.m., was the fourth of its kind at the base this year.
An agreement reached by the Japanese and U.S. governments in 1996 calls for the U.S. military to hold, in principle, parachute training at the U.S. Marine Corps’ auxiliary airfield in the island village of Ie in the prefecture.
Many Okinawa people have called on the U.S. military to stop conducting the parachute drills, as a local girl was killed in 1965 in Yomitan after being crushed under a U.S. military trailer that was released from an aircraft.
Defense Minister Taro Kono had asked the U.S. side to cancel Tuesday’s drill, saying that it would go against their agreement.
On Tuesday night, Kono told reporters that the U.S. side had failed to provide a sufficient explanation about the drill. “This was an extremely regrettable development that may affect the Japan-U.S. alliance,” he said.
How much longer will the very presence of US bases be tolerated? Merely complaining about the drills is pretty superficial. People have to be willing to discuss the root of the problem.
finance.yahoo.com/news/okinawa-governor-warns-strong-resistance-220000091.html
(Bloomberg) -- As the Pentagon hunts for sites to deploy missiles against a rising China, Okinawa’s governor is warning the U.S. to steer clear of the southern Japanese prefecture.
Governor Denny Tamaki said in an interview Friday that any U.S. attempt to base intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Okinawa would be firmly opposed by the local people. Tamaki, who was elected last year on a campaign to get the Marines’ Futenma air base out of the prefecture, argues the region already shoulders an unfair burden by hosting about half of the 50,000 U.S. military personnel in Japan.
“Intermediate-range ballistic missiles can be used to attack other countries, so deploying them would conflict with the constitution and lead to a further build-up of the U.S. bases,” Tamaki, 60, told Bloomberg News. “To have new military facilities would be absolutely unacceptable.”
Yes!
---
www.rt.com/news/472814-f16-training-bomb-japan/Pentagon ‘investigating’ after US warplane drops training munition on Japanese VILLAGE
...
“While conducting training, an F-16 at Misawa released a device 5 kilometers from the Draughon range late Wednesday,” US Forces Japan (USFJ) wrote in a tweet. “The cause of the incident is still under investigation, and USFJ notified [the Japanese government] this morning in accordance with all agreements.”
...
While the US has not been at war with Japan for the better part of a century, Washington still maintains an arsenal of military assets in the country for strategic purposes, effectively using the small island nation as an aircraft carrier. The US presence was established with Japan’s consent in 1957, and now consists of around 54,000 troops.
Accidents involving American warplanes have become something of a regular occurrence, however, with some 25 US vehicles involved in one mishap or another in 2017 alone. The bulk of 2017’s accidents occurred over Okinawa, which hosts the US’s Kadena Air Base (despite intense objections from locals). Last year, an American F-15 taking off from Kadena crashed some 50 miles off the Japanese coast, though the pilot ejected and was brought to safety.
Why hasn't Japan kicked them all out yet?
---
news.yahoo.com/trump-asked-tokyo-8-bln-045427542.html
TOKYO, Nov 16 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump has asked Japan to quadruple its payments for U.S. forces stationed there, Foreign Policy reported, citing unnamed current and former U.S. officials, as Washington presses long-standing allies to increase their defence spending.
Washington wants Tokyo to increase annual payments for the 54,000 U.S. troops in Japan to around $8 billion from about $2 billion, Foreign Policy said, citing three unnamed former defence officials. The current agreement expires in March 2021.
All Japan has to do is refuse to pay, and the US troops are out. Japan both gets rid of the US troops and saves money! Why even hesitate?
---
news.antiwar.com/2019/11/22/uk-refuses-to-return-its-last-african-colony/
The UK failed to meet a UN deadline Friday to hand over their last African colony back to its people. The Chagos Islands are far removed from mainland Africa and lay in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
In 1968, the British granted the Island of Mauritius its independence from colonial rule. Mauritius lies over 1,300 miles southwest of the Chagos Islands and was part of the same colonial territory.
Over 2,000 residents of Diego Garcia, the largest island of the Chagos, were forced to move to Mauritius to make way for a US military base. Since the expulsion, the people of Chagos have been fighting to return to their homeland.
In February, the International Court of Justice ruled that the islands are legally a part of Mauritius. In May, the UN General Assembly voted in favor of the court’s ruling and gave the UK six months to hand back the islands. 116 countries voted in favor of the decision, and only six voted against it. Those six countries were the US, UK, Israel, Australia, Hungary, and the Maldives.
In defense of their colonial rule, the British government released a statement, “The UK has no doubt as to our sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory, which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814.”
Ultimately, the UN resolution is not binding, and the UK will likely hold onto the colony while the US still has a lease on Diego Garcia, which they extended in 2016 to last until 2036.
In simple terms, Y steals from X, lends the stolen property to Z, and then tells X that it cannot be given back until Z is finished with it because it would be inconsiderate towards Z otherwise.
Background:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians
The depopulation of Chagossians from the Chagos Archipelago was the forced expulsion of the inhabitants of the island of Diego Garcia and the other islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) by the United Kingdom, at the request of the United States, beginning in 1968 and concluding on 27 April 1973 with the evacuation of Peros Banhos atoll.[1][2] The people, known at the time as the Ilois,[3] are today known as Chagos Islanders or Chagossians.[4]
Some Chagossians and human rights advocates have said that the Chagossian right of occupation was violated by the British Foreign Office as a result of the 1966 agreement[5] between the British and American governments to provide an unpopulated island for a U.S. military base, and that additional compensation[6] and a right of return[7] be provided.
...
The British government has consistently denied any illegalities in the expulsion.
NEVER FORGIVE. NEVER FORGET.
---
No change since last report:
us.yahoo.com/news/okinawa-gov-renews-demand-stop-064533617.html
TOKYO (AP) — Okinawa's Gov. Denny Tamaki renewed demands Thursday that Japan's central government halt construction of a U.S. Marine Corps. base being relocated to a less-crowded area of the southern Japanese island despite vehement local opposition.
Tamaki was responding to a defense ministry estimate that the project will require more than twice the time and costs earlier estimated because the seabed at the planned reclamation is “as soft as mayonnaise,” experts say, and needs reinforcing.
U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma is to be moved from densely populated Ginowan to the previously undeveloped Henoko area on Okinawa's eastern coast. Futenma's current base is to be closed and returned to Okinawa. Opponents of the relocation plan want the base moved entirely out of Okinawa
...
The Defense Ministry said moving Futenma base to Henoko will cost 930 billion yen ($8.5 billion) and take 12 years, pushing its completion and the closure of Futenma into the 2030s. That adds more than a decade to the plan, which has already been delayed by more than 20 years because of local opposition and other reasons.
---
"Is it possible that if the US were to be kicked out of the Middle-East the rest of the world would rally against the United States?"
Given that the US's poor reputation around the world is due to its Zionist operations in the Middle East, other countries would surely have less motivation to oppose the US if these activities ceased. This is the temptation that anti-neocons are dangling to distract from the possibility that the US could improve its reputation even more by switching to anti-Zionist operations in the Middle East.
"the US will always have a way back in as long as Israel remains."
Yes, which is why I want it to be the US which leads the future war to destroy Israel. This would be both compensation for its past Zionism and a clear signal that after Israel is destroyed the US means to leave the Middle East permanently.
---
"This is the temptation that anti-neocons are dangling:"
Yup. And the anti american False Left (who are effectively useful idiots for Duginism if you've read his writings) is promoting this. In my view, the worldview of the anti-american False Left that exalts Russia is similar to that of the archetypal False Left feminist who is superficially only opposed to patriarchy in her own culture but actually seeks to elevate the patriarchies of other cultures....
"to distract from the possibility that the US could improve its reputation even more by switching to anti-Zionist operations in the Middle East."
And I assume you are counting on the demographic blueshift alone to achieve this? I want to believe this is possible, but I am afraid of a nightmare scenario where the "coalition of the fringes" breaks apart. I will discuss this at length on the Demographic Blueshift page.
---
"I assume you are counting on the demographic blueshift alone to achieve this?"
BDS too!
We did not need Demographic Blueshift (though it doubtless helped!) to end Apartheid South Africa back in the Counterculture era.
"I am afraid of a nightmare scenario where the "coalition of the fringes" breaks apart."
That is up to us to prevent!
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/uniting-americans/