Historia inasema CIA walikuwa wakiondoa viongozi madikteta na waliweka viongozi wa kidemokrasia, zama hizi wanashindwa wapi?!

Nchi gani Ulaya kuna demokrasia tunayohubiriwa Africa? UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg na Spain ni Falme hizo. Ujerumani hakuna term limits kwa Chancellor wala kwa Rais, Naongelea Ulaya Magharibi wa sababu ndio wadau wakubwa na wahubiri wa haya mamabo.
Mfalme ni kama nembo ya taifa na si Mtendaji ni sawa na sisi tuwe na baba wa taifa.Hizo nchi zinaongwa na katiba haziongozwi na mawazo ya MTU mmoja ( udikteta).
 
Kwa taarifa ni bora kinachoendelea kuliko alichokuwa akiwafanyia. Usitake kutishia watu.
Wengi walimjua Gaddafi Kwa nje,sawa na nje wamjuavo jiwe Kwa nje.Gaddafi alimsaidia IDD amin, alikuwa mfadhili wa kundi La kigaidi La seleka na watuarag.Aliiendesha Libya Kwa mkono wa chuma sawa na kumchapa mtoto kisha unampa pipi na chocolate anyamaze.
 
Hii ni dhana ya kawaida kwa watu wenye unyonge wa akili. Kwamba ‘Subiri kaka mkubwa aje ndio utauona moto.’
Ukweli ni kuwa kama tunaona kuna uovu fulani tunatakiwa kukomaa wenyewe kuuondoa. Hao ‘wakubwa’ mleta mada anaowalilia wenyewe walifanya hivyo hivyo. Wamarekani waliukataa ukoloni wa mama yao mwingereza, Warusi waliukataa na kuuondosha utawala wa Czar na baadae ukomunisti, na wachina pia walikataa na kujitoa kutoka makucha ya wajapani. Na wala hamna cha ajabu C I A kujali maslahi ya Marekani mpaka kuingilia mambo ya nchi nyingine. Huo ndio ubeberu wenyewe na ieleweke kuwa ubeberu ni aina ya maendeleo ya kiuchumi na sio hizi hadithi za wanasiasa huko vijijini au propaganda uchwara hapa jukwaani. Na wala tusifikiri kwamba hawaoni au hawajali mambo yanayoendelea huku kwetu ambayo wengine wanayaona sio sahihi wakati wengine wanaona ndio tumefika, kutegemeana na tofauti za itikadi, viwango vya elimu, uzoefu, ukomavu katika demokrasia
n. k. Ni kwamba tu watafanya kitu kama wakiona maslahi yao yanaathiriwa kupita kiwango fulani cha uvumilivu na sio kabla ya hapo. Na ukiwa na dikteta mwerevu hatavuka hicho kiwango chao cha uvumilivu hivyo atacheza nao mpaka basi huku wale wanaompinga wakiugumia maumivu ya moyo na hata mwili.
Lakini pia wakati mwingine wanaweza fanya kitu kwa ajili ya unafiki tu ili kuuonesha ulimwengu kuwa wanasimamia kile wanachojinadi kuwa wanakiamini, hasa kama kuna taharuki na kelele nyingi mahali, kama ilivyo Palestina kwa mfano.
Cha msingi ni kuwa chanzo kikuu cha uovu ni dhana ya baadhi ya binadamu kudhani kwamba wanaweza kujua, kuhodhi na kutekeleza mazuri yote kwa ajili ya watu wengine au taifa lote(the greater good) na hivyo kuwasukumilia pembeni wote wenye mawazo tofauti.
Hatupaswi kama nchi kufika mahali ambapo inabidi kubembeleza huruma ya watu wengine ndio tukae sawa.
Tutatue matatizo yetu sisi wenyewe. When big brother come he will come to rape and kill and not to help. And even if they bring some relief it will prabably be very marginal and only for a selfish few. Let us heed the lessons of history.

U
Umenena vyema ni hadi pale tu maslai yao yatakapokuwa mashakani.KAGAME na M7 kudumu kwao mda mrefu si kwamba wako vizuri kwenye intelligence au wanawadhibiti wapinzani, ni Kwa sababu wanajua kula na kipofu wanacheza kote Lkn hawagusi maslai ya mabeberu awachezei sharubu za beberu wanapora Congo wanamuuzia beberu,beberu anawapa silaha, misaada na pesa za kujiimarisha.Hapo beberu ajali kuumia kwako thus anaalikwa mikutano ya kimataifa. Sasa naona students yeye anaingia kichwa kichwa kuchezea sharubu za beberu,beberu wana njia nyingi sana za kuwatoa wasiowataka na kila jamii ina njia zake nchi zenye nafuu kiuchumi kutumia njia za vikwazo hakuleti ticha ya haraka, njia sahihi ni kukuundia vikosi vidogovidogo na kuvipa silaha tumeona Libya,Iraq, Syria, Yemen, nk vikizidiwa nguvu wanaingia kupitia UN Kwa gia ya kuwalinda RAIA hapo utapigwa no free fly zone yaani anga yako inafungwa kifuatacho ni kipigo cha mbwa koko ardhini na angani,ukijifanya nebukadineza lzm wachomoe betri Salama ukimbilie uhamishoni.Wao watajilipa kupitia Mali ulizonazo kama ni mafuta gesi au madini yaani kuondolewa kwani madarakani utakugharamia mwenye we.Kwa nchi masikini zenye maslai makubwa kwao utawekewa vikwazo ili maisha yawe magumu maisha yakiwa magumu wananchi wako wataungana kuimba wimbo mmoja na vyombo vya dola hawa askari wa chini Maana dukani mwaenda wote wa juu ni wanufaika wa udikteta, wanalinda maslai ya dikteta,ila hali huwa ni wafata upepo wanapima nguvu ya wananchi ikiwa kubwa wakuu wa vyombo vya ulinzi huwa wanamgeuka dikteta anabaki mwenyewe aamini macho yake tumeona Libya, Egypt, sudani,Zimbabwe, nk wakuu wa vyombo vya ulinzi ni wafata na wapima upepo wanapima joto ili wasitengwe na jumuiya za kimataifa.
Hivo CIA wakati mwingine hawahitaji kutumia nguvu kumfurusha dikteta.
 
Hebu kuwa mkweli. US ilikuwa inafanya hivyo kwa nchi ambazo zina maslahi nazo na wamekuwa nwanaweka vibaraka wao. Mfano mzuri ni Angola ambapo walikuwa wanamsaidia sana bwana Savimbi. Kama walivyofanya Iran kwa kumpindua waziri mkuu Mohamed Mosadegh[alitaifisha visima vya mafuta]. Mifano ipo mingi sana.
Hivyo siyo kwamba walifanya kusaidia kuweka demokrasia, kuondoa vigenge vya watawala wachache na kusaidia kusimikia viongozi wa wengi?! Maana nchi zetu hizi zimebadirisha kabisa maana ya neno demokrasia, wamejikinga nyuma ya majeshi badala kuwekwa na wananchi.
 
Ushauri kwako, kajielimishe zaidi kuhusu hili. Wamarekani kupitia hao CIA kamwe, hawafanyi “regime changes” kukusaidia wewe bali kujisaidia wao. Sasa wewe baki hapo ukisubiri.
Hivyo unasema watawala hawa wa nchi zetu wanatimiza masharti ya wamarekani na CIA, na wanapokandamiza na kunyima demokrasia wananchi wake haiwasumbui wamarekani na hata CIA kwasababu interest zao wanazitekeleza.
 
Usipende kutamani ubeberu ukijiinua Africa ndugu,tengeneza tafakuri za watu weusi na bara letu,achana na makaburu hayo

Black man redemption
Watawala hawa wamenifanya nitamani ubeberu, maana beberu wanatoa haki. Hawa watawala weusi wameumiza wananchi wao muda mrefu sasa, mahakama za watawala, majeshi ya watawala, fedha za watawala, miradi ya nchi ya watawala. Hawa wananchi wao wamebaki na nini?!
 
Nimetisha watu kvp tena? Mie nimeeleza kuwa kinachoendelea sasa kipo wazi kila mtu anaona jinsi gani hali ilivyo mbaya na ndiyo mana watu wanajadili,sasa wewe unaesona utawala wa Gadaffi ndio kulikuwa na hali mbaya kuliko hali tunayoiona sasa basi ungeelezea huo utawala wa Gadaffi ulikuaje ili tupime na hali iliyo sasa.
Kuna mchangiaji jaelezea hili vizuri sana, usipoelewa jiote humu jf. Nisawa na mwanafunzi kuhudhuria lecture na haelewi chochote, bora kubaki nyumbani.
 
Huu ulaji wa kuku mataahira na viazi vya kukaanga ndio huzalisha vijana wenye mawazo haya

Hivi wewe kweli unawaza mabeberu wakusaidie mambo ya ndani ya nchi yako?

Hii ni sawa na kumuita jirani hendisam aende chumbani kwa mkeo akamsaidie kutoa panya huku wewe tipwatipwa ukitetema nje kwa woga what a shame!!!
Sisi wala viazi na kuku tumeshadhibitiwa na majeshi yetu wenyewe, maana yamegeuka kuwa kampuni za ulinzi wa watawala hivyokukosa namna ya kufurukuta, mahakama zao na hutenda kwa maslahi yao maana judges huteuliwa na wao, hulipwa na wao sisi hatuna uwezo kujitetea ndio tunaomba hao handsome CIA waje wasaidie kutuondolea hawa watawala na watusaidie kutuwekea viongozi tutakao wachagua, maana ilivyo sasa hatuchagui bali watawala huteua na kupitisha wawatakao wao kutekeleza maslahi yao.
Hawa wanawake wapo wengi huyo handsome akichukua nitachukua mwingine, kama panya wanasumbua ndani na handsome anaweza kusaidia kuwatoa chumbani mimi tipwatipwa sioni shida kabisa kumruhusu aingie huko chumbani hata akihakia huko mimi nita tafuta palipo salama bila panya.
 
Ina maana mpaka sasa hujui azma ya unafiki wa wazungu? Umeishia darasa la ngapi mkuu
Bahati mbaya sikufundishwa unafiki huo huusemao wewe uajua vitabu vyetu walitunga wazungu nikasoma shule za kuzungu na walimu wazungu.
Nimekuta nonewa na weusi watawala na magenge yao wakati hao wazungu walinipenda walinipa elimu nzuri na bure.
 
Democracy Dies in Darkness


The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War

By Lindsey A. O'Rourke

December 23, 2016

[https://img]
People walk in Red Square, with St. Basil’s Cathedral seen in the background, in central Moscow. (Maxim Zmeyev/Reuters)

The CIA has concluded with “high confidence” that Russia intervened covertly during the presidential election to promote Donald Trump’s candidacy. They based this assessment on the discovery that Russian security agencies had hacked the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign — and had released selected Democratic documents to WikiLeaks to undermine Clinton’s candidacy.

[The U.S. has a long history of hacking other democracies]

If true, Russia’s actions are reminiscent of Cold War covert political warfare, with an Internet-era twist. Here are six key things my research uncovered about those efforts.

Keep Reading

What do we know about covert political warfare?

Obviously, studying covert interventions is tough. By definition, the operations are designed so that the intervening state can plausibly deny it was involved, deflecting blame onto other actors. It’s impossible to get reliable cross-national data, given how widely countries vary in their rules about government transparency and freedom of the press. Add in flourishing conspiracy theories, and it can be hard to separate historical fact from fiction.

[8 questions about Donald Trump’s decision-making in a foreign policy crisis]

To tackle these problems, I have spent the past several years investigating allegations of U.S.-backed covert regime changes during the Cold War. I’ve done so by going through relevant documents from the National Archives, National Security Archive and presidential libraries. Fortunately, the combination of the U.S. government’s declassification rules, congressional inquiries and journalistic coverage has revealed a great deal about these operations.

1. Between 1947 and 1989, the United States tried to change other nations’ governments 72 times

That’s a remarkable number. It includes 66 covert operations and six overt ones.

Of course, that doesn’t excuse Russia’s meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. These 72 U.S. operations were during the Cold War — meaning that, in most cases, the Soviet Union was covertly supporting anti-U.S. forces on the other side. However, a look at these U.S. actions allows us to survey the covert activities of a major power, so we can glean insight into such interventions’ causes and consequences.

2. Most covert efforts to replace another country’s government failed

During the Cold War, for instance, 26 of the United States’ covert operations successfully brought a U.S.-backed government to power; the remaining 40 failed.

Success depended in large part on the choice of covert tactics. Not a single U.S.-backed assassination plot during this time actually killed their intended target, although two foreign leaders — South Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem and the Dominican Republic’s Rafael Trujillo — were killed by foreign intermediaries without Washington’s blessing during U.S.-backed coups.

[Does ‘draining the swamp’ mean what the Kremlin thinks it means?]

Similarly, covert actions to support militant groups trying to topple a foreign regime nearly always failed. Of 36 attempts, only five overthrew their targets. Sponsoring coups was more successful: nine out of 14 attempted coups put the U.S.-backed leaders in power.

3. Meddling in foreign elections is the most successful covert tactic (as Russia may not be surprised to learn).

I found 16 cases in which Washington sought to influence foreign elections by covertly funding, advising and spreading propaganda for its preferred candidates, often doing so beyond a single election cycle. Of these, the U.S.-backed parties won their elections 75 percent of the time.

Of course, it is impossible to say whether the U.S.-supported candidates would have won their elections without the covert assistance; many were leading in the polls before the U.S. intervention. However, as the CIA’s head of the Directorate of Intelligence, Ray S. Cline once put it, the key to a successful covert regime change is “supplying just the right bit of marginal assistance in the right way at the right time.”

In an election where Clinton won the popular vote by 2.86 million but lost the electoral college, thanks to 77,744 voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, did Russia’s covert campaign give “just the right bit of marginal assistance,” thus tipping the scales to Trump by suppressing Democratic turnout?

It’s impossible to say for sure, but the numbers were certainly close. If Clinton had replicated Obama’s 2012 turnout in those three swing states, she would have won them by more than half a million votes. Even if she had been able to convert just 1 percent of these states’ Trump voters, she would have won by a combined 55,000 votes. The Clinton campaign undoubtedly had many strikes against it: high unfavorability ratings, inaccurate polling, FBI Director James B. Comey’s letter and strategic mishaps. Still, Russia’s covert campaign probably compounded these problems. Thanks to WikiLeaks’s slow trickle of hacked emails, the news cycle throughout October was flooded with embarrassing anti-Clinton stories, preventing her from building momentum after the debates.

4. Regime changes rarely work out as the intervening states expect.

A Trump presidency might not be as much of a boon for Russia as hoped or feared. Clinton warned in the third presidential debate that Putin “would rather have a puppet as president of the United States.”

However, as I show in a recent International Security article with Alexander Downes, leaders installed via regime change generally don’t act as puppets for long. Once in power, the new leaders find that acting at their foreign backers’ behest brings significant domestic opposition. They therefore tend to moderate their policies or turn against the foreign backer completely. In fact, there are already reports that the Kremlin is feeling “buyer’s remorse” over Trump’s victory, given his unpredictability.

5. Covert regime change can devastate the target countries

My research found that after a nation’s government was toppled, it was less democratic and more likely to suffer civil war, domestic instability and mass killing. At the very least, citizens lost faith in their governments.

Even if Russia didn’t make the difference in electing Trump, it successfully undermined confidence in U.S. political institutions and news media.

As historian Timothy Snyder pointed out in September, “If democratic procedures start to seem shambolic, then democratic ideas will seem questionable as well. And so America would become more like Russia, which is the general idea. If Mr. Trump wins, Russia wins. But if Mr. Trump loses and people doubt the outcome, Russia also wins.”

6. The best antidote to subterfuge is transparency.

States intervene covertly so that they don’t have to be held accountable for their actions. Amid reports that Russian hackers have been emboldened by the success of the DNC hack, exposing Moscow’s hand is the first step toward deterring future attacks against the United States and upcoming elections in Germany, France and the Netherlands. It may also be the best way to dispel disinformation and restore faith in U.S. democratic institutions at a time when 55 percent of Americans say they are troubled by Russian interference into the election,

The United States is beginning this effort. Congress has announced bipartisan investigations and Obama ordered a comprehensive report on covert foreign interference into U.S. presidential elections going back to the 2008 election.

Given how serious these allegations are, and especially considering that President-elect Trump rejects the intelligence community’s consensus conclusion, releasing these reports publicly before the inauguration could help set U.S. democracy right.
Ungetumia lugha ya SADC wasomaji wa ukanda huu waelewe pia, hatujui umeunga mkono hoja au rumspringa. Ila tumekupigia makofi maana ndio utamaduni huo.
 
7 Reactions
Reply
Back
Top Bottom