46 US Warships Plus 7,000 US Marines On Route To Costa Rica?

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
46 US Warships Plus 7,000 US Marines On Route To Costa Rica?
<!-- end display headline -->Scott Oliver - July 2010

On the 2nd July 2010 the Costa Rica Congress authorized the entry of 46 U.S. warships capable of carrying 200 helicopters and warplanes, plus 7,000 U.S. Marines "who may circulate the country in uniform without any restrictions" , plus submarine killer ships to the Costa Rican coast for "anti-narcotics operations and humanitarian missions' between 1st July 2010 until 31st December 2010.

With this kind of nation destroying firepower, it gives real meaning to the expression "war on drugs", but if this a real six month "war on drugs" we should expect to see some fantastic results, right?

Politicians representing the Acci?n Ciudadana (PAC), the Unidad Social Cristiana (PUSC) and the Frente Amplio (FA) political parties opposed the measure saying that the destructive force of the ships, helicopters and 7,000 US Marines is "disproportionate for the fight against drug trafficking."

On Sunday, the President of Costa Rica Laura Chinchilla said that the government does not intend to militarize the fight against drugs and the Minister of Public Security Jose Maria Tijerino stressed that this huge, powerful military force would be under the command of the US Coast Guard and not the US Navy.

Although I don't suppose the Costa Ricans, the drug traffickers or we expats will notice the difference...

A few of the thoughts that raced through my mind?

  1. To my knowledge at the present time, Costa Rica is not suffering from any "humanitarian" crisis.
  2. The article did not make it clear what sort of "humanitarian missions" might take place.
  3. The article did not mention where any "humanitarian mission" might take place.
  4. Based on the truly horrific, drug crime related slaughters we have witnessed in Mexico, wouldn't it be better conducting these kinds of heavy weapon "anti-narcotics pperations" in northern Mexico?
  5. With what is probably the world's worst environmental disaster going on right now in the Gulf of Mexico, surely it would be more appropriate to conduct "humanitarian missions" in the Gulf?
  6. Or, could these vital warships be fleeing from something far more dangerous that is about to happen in the Gulf of Mexico?
  7. The article did not make it clear whether these vessels would be patrolling off the Pacific or Atlantic coast but either way, is it possible they are on their way to Venezuela? Either as a show of force or something more serious?
  8. Does anyone know if any of these ships carry nuclear weapons?

Another politician Francisco Chac?n defended the arrival of the US forces saying that "they would give humanitarian support, build schools and fight against drug traffickers."

If these 7,000 US Marines, 200 helicopters, warplanes and submarine killers are coming to Costa Rica to "give humanitarian support, build schools and fight against drug traffickers," perhaps we could ask them to repair the new highway to Caldera? With that kind of manpower they could have it finished in a week.
But seriously, what do you think is going on?
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
:shrug:

Except to say that Obama is looking more and more like a neocon.:0corn
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
They're clearing the Naval ships out of the Gulf for safety reasons. If the the relief wells don't work and they're unable to stop the flow of oil from the Macondo oil field, they may have to attempt some type of deepwater explosion to try to close the well. That could result in a tsunami that could jeopardize U.S. Naval ships in the Gulf.

Or maybe not... :shrug:

Trench
 
Last edited:

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
They're clearing the Naval ships out of the Gulf for safety reasons. If the the relief wells don't work and they're unable to stop the flow of oil from the Macondo oil field, they may have to attempt some type of deepwater explosion to try to close the well. That could result in a tsunami that could jeopardize U.S. Naval ships in the Gulf.

Or maybe not... :shrug:

Trench

:mj07:
 

Woodson

L I V I N
Forum Member
Oct 23, 1999
15,508
79
48
Blockchain
They're clearing the Naval ships out of the Gulf for safety reasons. If the the relief wells don't work and they're unable to stop the flow of oil from the Macondo oil field, they may have to attempt some type of deepwater explosion to try to close the well. That could result in a tsunami that could jeopardize U.S. Naval ships in the Gulf.

Or maybe not... :shrug:

Trench

That was truly hilarious. Thanks for the laugh bud. :mj07:
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I hope we do take over Costa Rica. I love that country, and would love cheaper travel scenarios for future vacations.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Are U.S. Taxpayers Funding Empire Building With Costa Rica?

Are U.S. Taxpayers Funding Empire Building With Costa Rica?

Are U.S. Taxpayers Funding Empire Building With Costa Rica?

Michael Edwards
Activist Post
July 21, 2010

One would think that America is experiencing Boom Times with the way their government is throwing around money lately. The recent announcement that a flotilla of warships and troops will be sent to Costa Rica would ordinarily be laughable for its wastefulness, but with America experiencing an unemployment rate north of 20% and the median duration of unemployment at the highest in the last 50 years, this should be no laughing matter.
Many Americans do not know much about Costa Rica, its history, or its current political landscape. It might be worth knowing exactly how and where American tax dollars are being spent. Here are some basic facts about Costa Rica:
? Costa Rica is a democratic republic with a very strong system of Constitutional checks and balances.
? Costa Rica does not have a military; it was abolished in 1948.
? Recent president, Oscar Arias, was a Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1987.
? Costa Rica consistently ranks as one of the happiest places on Earth according to many polls, including the first ever ?happiness poll? conducted by Gallup, where it was determined to be #1 in The Americas.
In other words, Costa Rica?s lack of a military culture has been enshrined, and is part and parcel of their overall happiness. Forty-six warships, 200 helicopters, and 7000 troops being sent to patrol the coastal waters of Costa Rica sends the world a false message that Costa Rica is in some way needy of this massive loan of the American military. Furthermore, the entire region is moving away from neoliberalism, and toward solidarity, in an attempt to build a sovereign Latin America.

We have to assume that Costa Rica?s welcoming support of the American military is likely to fan regional tensions, at the very least. Or, could that be the reason itself for such a move? In a comprehensive article by Mark Vorpahl, writing for Global Research, he points out that such an excessive amount of military in order to ?combat drug trafficking? or ?offer humanitarian aid? to a country the size of Rhode Island can hardly be justified in and of itself. Much more likely is that this is regional in scope and is a U.S. intimidation force, rather than a humanitarian mission.
Vorpahl asserts that the U.S. is determined to return to the Monroe Doctrine principles which led to the overthrow of popular governments throughout Latin America. He states the results:
Therefore, the U.S. Empire builders could use their political and economic might alone to subjugate these neo-colonies to a very profitable neoliberal agenda. This agenda included allowing U.S. corporations easy access to pillage these nations? public sectors through privatization, letting multi-national corporations overrun these nations? local markets and farms through the elimination of trade barriers, and increasing the exploitation of their workers and the devastation of their natural resources by tossing out national labor and environmental standards. Because of the profits enjoyed by a few as a result of these measures, they carried the day, though they, in turn, created a simmering spirit of rebellion in the semi-colonies? peasantry and workers that would inevitably find expression.
It is true that Costa Rica is in a precarious geographical location amid other historically less peaceful (and much poorer) nations, but this is nothing new. It seems that the most likely scenario is that America would like to take the Drug War show to a new area of the high seas, and they have found a convenient headquarters for operations. Geopolitics notwithstanding, the financial cost to America should be noted. America is already embroiled in two major wars; has military bases all over the planet; and has a true disaster spreading along its own coast, not to mention the elephant in the living room of a looming second Great Depression.
As a frequent visitor to Costa Rica, I can only add that if the Costa Rican government is allowing its country to be the staging ground and corporate headquarters for empire building in Latin America, they should be called on it. If the Costa Rican people decide to abandon their dedication to peace, and the absence of a military, by allowing this violation of their sovereignty and Constitution, they are truly misguided.
Polls show that most Americans do support spreading the idea of democracy, but do not agree with empire building. If the American people do not voice their outrage over this, and the abject wastefulness of their tax dollars during a time of more pressing crises, they are again proving to the world who really has the power in America.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Militarization of Central America and the Caribbean: The U.S. Military Moves Into Cos

Militarization of Central America and the Caribbean: The U.S. Military Moves Into Cos

Militarization of Central America and the Caribbean: The U.S. Military Moves Into Costa Rica

by Mark Vorpahl


20171.jpg




Global Research, July 19, 2010


Nestled between Panama to its south and Nicaragua to its north, Costa Rica is a Central American nation roughly the size of Rhode Island.



If another nation were to send Rhode Island a force of 7,000 troops, 200 helicopters, and 46 warships in an effort to eradicate drug trafficking, it is doubtful that the residents of Rhode Island would consider this offer "on-the-level." Such a massive military force could hardly be efficiently used to combat drug cartels. The only logical conclusion is that the nation whose troops now are occupying this other country had another agenda in mind that it didn't want to share.



In early July, by a vote of 31 to 8, the Costa Rican Congress approved the U.S. bringing into their nation the same military force described above, justified with the same dubious "war on drugs" rationale. According to the agreement, the military forces are supposed to leave Costa Rica by the end of 2010. This begs the question, however, if such an over the top display of military muscle is needed now to combat the drug cartels, what will be done in the next few months to make their presence unnecessary? The history of such U.S. military deployments around the world suggests a more credible outcome than what the agreement states. Once the U.S. moves such massive forces into a country, they rarely move them out.



When push comes to shove, the political machinery in Costa Rica is subservient to U.S. government and corporate interests. Nevertheless, there are many in Costa Rica who are declaring that the agreement is a violation of their national sovereignty and is unconstitutional. (In 1948 Costa Rica abolished its army, which was sanctioned in its constitution.) Legislator Luis Fishman has vowed to challenge the decision of the Congress in the courts.



Shifting Strategy and Tactics



The buildup of U.S. armed forces in Costa Rica is part of an escalating pattern that indicates a shifting of strategy and tactics for the U.S. in controlling what the Monroe Doctrine infamously described as the U.S.'s "backyard" ? that is, all of Latin America. Since the U.S. government inspired covert coup d?etats and political reversals of popular governments and/or movements in Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador in previous decades, U.S. rulers had figured they had things stitched up to their liking in Latin America. The political elites in Latin America were uniformly in the pockets of the U.S. corporate empire and appeared to be more or less in control of their people. They commonly outlawed strikes and at times even trade unions, eliminated minimum wage laws, and gave enormous tax breaks to U.S. corporations.



Therefore, the U.S. Empire builders could use their political and economic might alone to subjugate these neo-colonies to a very profitable neoliberal agenda. This agenda included allowing U.S. corporations easy access to pillage these nations? public sectors through privatization, letting multi-national corporations overrun these nations? local markets and farms through the elimination of trade barriers, and increasing the exploitation of their workers and the devastation of their natural resources by tossing out national labor and environmental standards. Because of the profits enjoyed by a few as a result of these measures, they carried the day, though they, in turn, created a simmering spirit of rebellion in the semi-colonies' peasantry and workers that would inevitably find expression.



As the U.S. began to set its sights on and send its resources to other parts of the world, most notably the Middle East and Asia, the web they had wrapped around Latin America began to unravel. This was most apparent in Venezuela where a U.S.-backed coup attempt in April of 2002 failed because of the massive mobilizing of the Venezuelan people in defense of their democratic rights. All subsequent attempts of the Venezuelan oligarchy, in collusion with the U.S. State Department, to get rid of Chavez resulted in their humiliation because of the constant support and organizing of the country?s lower classes. It became apparent to the U.S. ruling class that they could no longer rely on the Venezuelan oligarchy, which had lost direct control over the political situation. What is more, the popular upsurge witnessed in Venezuela in the past decade, opened up floodgates for anti-imperialist organizing across the continent, resulting in the election of a number of left-wing presidents.



Not only was the neoliberal agenda of the U.S. being blocked, an alternative to the U.S. Free Trade policies was being set up. The Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA), which was initiated by Venezuela and Cuba, began to build a trading block based on exchange according to different nations' needs rather than U.S. corporate profits. While ALBA needs to be more substantially developed in order to fulfill its promise, especially in regards to organizing grassroots control to determine its priorities, it is a challenge to U.S. corporate and political dominance in the region.



U.S. Military Moves



As a result, the U.S. government began to shift its reliance from solely economic and political means to control Latin America towards taking military measures, even while engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What have been some of these measures?



In 2006 the U.S. conducted military exercises off the coast of Venezuela called "Operation Partnership of the Americas." This exercise involved four ships, 60 fighter planes, and 6,500 U.S. troops.



In 2006 the U.S. State Department classified the islands of Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao, with their military bases jointly contracted to Holland and the U.S., as "The Third Frontier of the United States." U.S. aircraft carriers, war ships, combat planes, Black Hawk helicopters, nuclear submarines, and thousands of troops began to build up in Curacao in particular. In 2009 a U.S. military plane was intercepted in Venezuelan airspace that had flown from Curacao's base.



In 2008 the U.S. reactivated the Fourth Fleet to patrol Caribbean waters. This fleet had been out of commission since 1950. Now it operates with the potential of acting as a floating base for the U.S. to conduct military strikes throughout Central and South America.



In 2009 the U.S. made a deal with Colombia to build up its military personal in seven bases, from 250 to 800 American troops with 600 civilian contractors, effectively taking control over these installations. This was widely denounced throughout Latin America as an action aimed at intimidating Venezuela. In December of that year a U.S. drone plane flying from one of these Colombian bases violated Venezuelan airspace.



From 2009 to 2010 the U.S. worked behind the scenes to legitimize a military coup in Honduras against lawfully elected President Zelaya, who had aligned the nation with ALBA. Part of the U.S.'s motivation behind its actions was to maintain control of Soto Cano's Airbase, with its 550 U.S. troops and 650 U.S. and Honduran civilians. In the 1980's the U.S. had used this base for a training ground and launching pad for the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua and El Salvadorian death squads opposed to the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN). There is good reason for concern that this Airbase will again be used for similar operations today.



In 2009 the U.S. and Panama agreed to open up two naval bases in Panama, which will be the first time U.S. military forces will be based in this nation since 1999.



War on Drugs?



Most of these measures have been justified on the grounds of combating drug trafficking, including the military buildup in Costa Rica. However, they have not curtailed this problem at all. Such U.S. military buildups have generally been accompanied by an increase in drug trafficking, as has happened in both Columbia and Afghanistan. Based on this record it can only be concluded that the "War on Drugs" rationale is a red herring for public relations consumption, not the actual motivation.



This military build up in Costa Rica is the latest in a series of moves the U.S. has made in Latin America that seeks to use threats and arms to reverse the strength of popular anti-imperialist forces across the region. The U.S. is playing with the possibility of erupting a continental conflagration for the sake of corporate profits.



While it is doubtful that the U.S. wants to directly engage in a military conflict with, most likely, Venezuela right now, preparations for this possibility are being made. What is more likely in the short term is that the U.S. military will use its forces to engage in sabotage and intimidation in hopes of reversing support for the nations aligned with ALBA. It is also very possible that the U.S. military will help to support proxy armies, such as Colombia's, in military conflicts that align with U.S. interests. However, this is a dangerous game. Even in the short term, the U.S. ruling class may drag the nation into another direct conflict, in spite of their intentions, that could spread to involve numerous other nations.



Peace and International Solidarity



While U.S. workers are suffering from unemployment, insufficient health care, drastic cuts to education and social services, as well as environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico created by the Obama governmental collusion with BP, the priorities of the U.S. ruling class are elsewhere. They are more concerned with pouring money into military buildups that threaten war. The target of such a war or wars would be the popular working class movements in Latin America, whose only crime has been to struggle to liberate themselves from super exploitation and political repression. It is the same economic and political elite in the U.S. that are denying U.S. workers what is rightfully theirs that are opposing the efforts of workers and peasants throughout the continent to empower themselves.



It is the task of the anti-war movement not only to oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also to prevent future U.S. wars in Latin America. Wherever anti-war activists seek to mobilize people against war, they should also seek to educate about the U.S. empire's military moves in Latin America.



Furthermore, it will require international solidarity to combat what the U.S. elite is doing in Central and South America. There was recently an event that could go some way towards preparing this solidarity. In Sanare, Venezuela, from June 21 - 25, a series of meetings were held entitled "Ecuentro of the Americas: Resisting Militarization and Promoting a Culture of Peace." It consisted of delegates of organizations from 19 nations across the continent, including School of the Americas (SOA) Watch of the U.S. You can read more about this at http://www.soaw.org/.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top