st. stay in power to keep the region and stable. right? because you have iran, iraq, i believe in 199091 had the 4th largest military, but then why in 2003. they want it to take him out of power when they know it's going to open a vacuum, but was saddam hussein a direct threat now to the united states? no, was he a direct threat to the people of the united states? no, in my opinion, i don't believe so. why do you think, daniel, that america, england and somebody, nato allies? why do you think they chose the middle east? one i believe oil. i and to i believe, to make the middle east unstable. there are certain people who like to control through fear. and if you make the, the middle east unstable and then you, you keep pushing the narrative terrorists groups. i

believe this is a way that they're able to control the people with fear and to be able to have the opportunity to invade other countries. and do you think though, do you think that, you know, you said the oil was so important for going into iraq, do you really think oil? was that important for going in know in the year 2000 there were 7 countries who did not join the us central bank and look 2001, afghanistan, 2003, iraq, 2011 livia and syria. then after that. yeah, he just, you know, just makes me think that is a motive for invading a country. you mentioned these countries here who essentially got invaded over the past 20 odd years. general wesley clark, near 4 star general that he, he came out, he actually started talking publicly about this didn't, he said i, i came up,

a commander came into my office one day through a stack of papers on my table and said, we're going to be invading 5 countries and 7 years or something like that, wasn't it? right. so you know the story as well. just briefly. but it's interesting for me because 911 happened. we knew it was osama bin laden and al qaeda in afghanistan. we started in afghanistan, 2001, and then we switch to iraq. and that's a big question that i believe americans, citizens who live in nato allied countries. you know, we need to start asking questions. why watch our social coverage? oh, the anniversary throughout the day and beyond here on our team, national by more details on the human and economic costs of the iraq attack on our site. archie dot com. ah

wow, that's overnight. all iraq, other top layout, the ah, hello, i'm manila chan. you were tuned into modus operandi. the political lexicon gets a re brand traditionally called a kuda car, now coined regime change, but the deadly results remain the same. this week will examine the anatomy of a qu, what's it look like? how does one develop and who is most often to blame for the former us marine corps intelligence officer, turned un weapons inspector, scott ritter, shed some light on the issue. all right, let's get into the m o me

. i said tomato, you say tomato, i say who? the u. s. government says regime change when one party or group assumes power by force, that usually leads to a lot of bloodshed, whatever the word game, that's known, the world over as a crew data. but in the age of social media sensitivity and kindness in recent years, terms like bloody coo or a thing of the 20th century in the 21st century pop culture as dictated by and proliferated by the us state department. we now call it regime change, toppling whoever is labeled a dictator. authoritarian or desperate regime change is much better packaging for selling a war destabilization against another country or sometimes even against your own.

so what is the ammo behind a cou? i mean, regime change. how do they spring up, or are they actually grown? so for that, let's turn to a military expert with international experience. he was one of the 1st voices to blow the whistle on w. m. d. 's in iraq, which we know ultimately found saddam hussein to be on the receiving end of regime change. scott ritter is a former us marine corps intelligence officer and later became un weapons inspector . scott, always good to see you. a coo, coo, that's a 4 letter word. the u. s. government has largely purged that sort of language from its official lexicon. the term is now regime change. recently we heard president biden and others in his administration say the quiet part out loud in regard to

latimer pollutant. they said this proxy war and ukraine is actually about regime change. so let's 1st address the shift in language here. why doesn't the us use the term coo anymore? i mean, as you said, it's a, it's a 4 letter word. it's a dirty word. there's a lot of negative connotation attached to it. many us supported crews in the past of produced the leadership of that that has been embarrassing to the united states . it's also something that tries in the face of a international law cou implies that we are actively supporting a military junta to forcefully take over a, from a government oftentimes a democratically elected government. and we don't want to encourage that anymore. so we speak of regime change, see a regime change could be as simple as an election that you voted out

a regime. it's very harmless. you see bloodless, nobody gets hurt. a regime change can also reflect the independent will of a sovereign people who cited to liberate themselves from an oppressive regime. or this is wife. in the case of a, my don in, in the ukraine in 2014, we speak of a revolution, a regime change where the people ousted the pro russian. you know, a victory on a coach. we don't admit that it was a could a tar carried out by ultra training ocean, ultra nationalists, of funded and supported by the united states. one would be a blatant violation of international law. the other one is the lawful expression of free will buy a sovereign people. and indeed, if one takes a look at the sanctions that were imposed on russia a prior because of the special military operation, this was a regime change operation. this was about bringing harm to the russian people of

such a scope and scale that the russian people would become alienated, a disenfranchised up from the russian government and rise up and removal at him, recruited from from power a regime change, but never a coo and what are the characteristics as a kill. how might one know if they were being code? generally speaking, we speak or could, could a talk an implication is military. so the, the 1st key is that there are guns involved. there's usually violence involved or the threat of violence regime changes. i said it's a, it's a more, you know, warm and fuzzy thing. an election. you know, maybe a demonstration, but the ku is guys in uniforms. kicking the door down when he guns in your face saying your day is done, you're finished. sometimes they shoot you. other times they arrest you sometimes just escort you out, put you on an airplane and fly you off. but generally speaking, when we speak of

a qu, it sub men in uniforms who are coming in forcefully removing from power. then in replacing you with martial law because of the, the genesis of the coup as a center dissatisfaction toward so that the kind of constitutional rule that has been transparent. so the idea is to suspend the constitution, replace it with martial law. and then the military will work to restructure society in a way that suits their needs and then and only then they may seek to transfer power back to civilians. but this time, the civilian population will understand that if they get out of step one more time, they'll be could again, i mean one only has to take a look at the history of turkey recently a, they had a succession, a 960 seventy's eighty's, ninety's of military coups you knew as a coo attention st. all right, so i heard so theologists say that one of the things that are part and parcel of

acute talk is being able to shift public opinion. language is one of those methods . it's one of those tools. what would you say are other methods of fomenting a cou? i think one of the key aspects, if you're going to form into crew, is to create economic discomfort. it's hard for a military to successfully carry out a qu, when the population is satisfied, the government hour. and, you know, it goes back down to james carville, and the advice he gave to bill clinton when bill clinton was 1st running for president. stop, talk about foreign policy and i was, it's the economy, stupid. and that's a lesson that, you know, every american politician understands at the end of the day. it's about, are you better off today than you were when the current power came in to power? is the answer is no, then they run a risk of, you know, being ousted by an election. but if you can do a qu, your bypassing the election,

you go straight to the ouster part. one of the ways that you want a foam into qu, is to take advantage of, you know, economic difficulty to eliminate the people from the government by pointing out that the reason why they're suffering economically is because of the bad policies of the government. you're generally want to tie the economic difficulties to notions of corruption, that these are the people you intrusted to look out for your welfare. but instead of looking out for you, they're only looking out for themselves. they're enriching themselves, short base jobs. so she want to create this mythology, in many cases, probably true of your corruption, of a, of a leadership be lead out of touch with the, with, with the people. so these are the kind of sentiments you want to abs because one of the most vulnerable periods of a crew is when a 1st happened. i mean, the person more scared than the president, it's being forcefully moved from power. is the people doing it because you've just

taken a big step into the unknown at the qu, fails, you're off down to accuse of treason, and you can put up against the wall and you get shot, where you're the one being sent on exile. and one of the best ways to make a crew fail is that the people go to the streets. all right, so, so let me get this straight sanctions that are probably likely a tool then to help foment a kill the united states. and it's infinite wisdom is under the impression that we can exacerbate economic tension in a targeted country. um, by imposing sanctions we, we did this with iraq, a place that i have an intimate experience with. you know, our policy early on in the, in the saddam regime, in the post gulf war period was that, um, we were hoping that there would be a coup that we would get the, his military leadership to apply the $75.00 cent solution, which is the price with $9.00 millimeter board back of his head. and um, and then replace him with someone that looked like saddam talk like saddam. but

this was a name saddam and needed some of that didn't work. so then we went into a prolonged period of trying to apply pressure on iraq through economic sanctions under the belief that if we made the right the iraqi people suffer, that they would rise up. and that generals would recognize the suffering and say, we now need to get rid of saddam. but that didn't work. why? because jane sanctions generally backfire against those people who are imposing them, either politically or in the case of what's going on with russia right now. they just actually blow black and you suffer worse economically. with iraq. what happened is the iraqi people rallied around their leadership instead of alienating the iraqi people from the iraqi leadership. director leadership was to say the economic suffering that you have right now isn't because of me. it's because of these outside powers that are opposing sanctions. you will be hard pressed to find any examples of economic sanctions actually working. generally speaking,

when they apply sanctions, they had the opposite effect. instead of encouraging a coup against a leader, you what removed you actually strengthen the hand of that leader. it's worked and it's worked against us and iraq. it's works against us and iran working against us in russia. all right, so cool is our never spontaneous events, right? they are engineered, they're a process, they take time and planning, civil unrest for as organic as many of them appear. oftentimes, especially in this day and age, those to our engineer who tends to be behind the engineering of today's modern civil unrest. whether you know it's domestically or abroad, can you think of any persons or groups or countries that come to mind? i mean, crews are socially engineered and even though we speak of a military coup it's, it's not the us military's job to go in and, and create conditions for a good,

a tough. that's the job of the central intelligence. and that's who's behind the vast majority of the nefarious actions in the world today. the ca job is to go in and manipulate societies. they do that by buying off politicians. they do that by funding oppositions. they do that by a deliberately undermining economies. they do that by planting this information by taking control the media, seating the media with, with false narratives or narratives to support their point of view of, but basically by manipulating the society from the inside out. it's so it's done by intelligent services and the intelligence services that do this more than anybody else are the united states and the british m i 6, i think anywhere you go in the world, if you scratch deepen up, you're going to find the cia. and i'll say this, i mean, i know there's people out there who believe the ca, as good ca,

analysis used to be solid. when i was doing the soviet target, had high respect for the sober division within ca, that was responsible for soviet analysis. i even had respect for some of the ca, officers who were working the operation side against the soviet target. but today, you know, when i take a look at it to see a, they bring nothing positive. if you have a c, a station, an embassy in your country, they're not there to help you turn her there to help you there hurt their job isn't to, you know, promote your interest. the job is there to solely promote the interests of the united states. and even if you think you have a cooperative relationship with them, it's not. it's only cooperative in so far as to see. i use it as being beneficial to a larger intelligence plan, a larger argot. so they're either working with you to try and bring unrest somewhere else in the world,

or they're working in your country who foment unrest in your country so that there is an outcome. ready beneficial the united states, not necessarily beneficial to you, but i would say the number one bad actor in the world today is the central intelligence agency, which basically exists to create the conditions that further american power, usually at the detriment of the nations that they're involved. or it's scott ritter . don't go anywhere. there's a ton more to unpack here. coming up next. can we blame aku on mark zuckerberg? we'll examine the role of social media in modern day coups. we're going to discuss it when we return, sit tight. the ammo will be right back with us. ah

ah, ah, ah, the me, mark zach or barn could some of the 21st century cruise be blamed on facebook. right, look, i'm not trying to be sued for libel or slander, so i won't lay these issues squarely at his feet, but nowadays regime change operations happen right before our very eyes on social media. scott ritter is joining us again. scott, thanks for sticking around. still want to talk about so in the 20th century, a post mortem of places like iran,

1953. she lay 1973, bolivia, 1980 iraq, 2001 libya 2011. and i believe future historians will refer to ukraine in 2014 as an example. all had so called us intervention in lieu of the term coo or regime change operation. what's been the result of us intervention for some of these places? well, 1st thing is, none of these places emerged better after the u. s. intervention than they were before the intervention. everything the united states touches when it comes to this kind of activity where there's dies. there's not a single example where the united states went in and touched the country and said, i'm intervening to achieve a change in regimes and everything came up smell of roses. it doesn't work that we looked at libya under gadhafi priorities and i must sit here is singing the praises

gadhafi. i'm not to pretend to do some sort of wonderful democratic leader and all this done. so he was gadhafi, we know who he was, what he was as a man who cared about his country, what he was as a man who invested heavily in the infrastructure as country. if you take a look at the infrastructure of libya, pre 2011, it was a, it was a, it was a nation who is doing ok. i mean, they high standard living a modern of, you know, facility post usps intervention. well libby is, is, is, is a hello, it's a, it's an economy is in tatters. it's infrastructure ruined it's, it's a civil war. um, nothing good and we can go across down the road. every single place that we touch is up worse off than it was before we touched what happens when a had a state perhaps fame rejects the u. s. o, or intervention? oh, well, um, they probably don't last very long. um. it's rare to have

a leader that says we don't want your assistance, we don't want your help. we're going to go it our own way. because normally the united states were not a benevolent nation. we don't have a tendency go out and offer assistance to people just because they needed and out of the kindness of our heart, we offer assistance when it benefits us when there's an outcome that we desire. and that outcome is usually linked to a geopolitical your impact that we want that furthers what we call our national security interests. so. ready a nation refusing help means that they have competed a process of achieving an outcome. that's a decision makers have made a decision, is necessary for a larger objective. so we can't just simply go, oh, okay, i don't want our help. gosh, we'll walk away from this one. if you don't want our help, and we're going to find somebody who does want our help. if you reject american assistance, you're rejecting a, you're, you're, you're doing, you're not just rejecting assistance,

you're hurting national security. now you become a threat to the united states and threats need to be removed. so we'll find a way to remove what role does the traditional legacy media play if any, in cruise and, and for this i'm referring specifically to the tv and to print. well, normally speaking, traditional legacy media is that which the majority of a population you know, gets their information from and said, generally speaking, it's government troll, depending on where you're in or government influences even here in the united states. the people who report on government things know that there hostages to certain sources of information that are comprised primarily of anonymous senior level government officials who feed them data that allows them to have a headline story. you remove the government source, you really got nothing. so legacy media is there to promote

a way of thinking, so you can either gain control of the legacy media if you're cia and start planting stories that undermine facing the government. or is you're the government. you can, um, you can seize control yourself and only put forward stories that, that, that are favor. would you? this is why there's a new kind of media, the social media, facebook, the twitters telegram, whatever that's out there that allows an entire round to be to be put there. um, but even then that's, that's not as effective as one would think. i know united states is called it digital democracy where we use these are the social media platforms to engender public unrest. um a, again, it hasn't been the successful it failed in egypt. it failed in iran. it failed in turkey. it's failing in russia. it failed just about everywhere that we've, we've tried to use it. um, and the other thing about legacy media is that it is, it can be used by the government to a so

a mission. so let's say in the u. s. legacy media, you know, one would think that, you know, russia tried to exploit it to alter um, you know, the point of united states, but we use it the united states government uses it to shape american opinion and indeed try and influence opinion abroad. because american media has historically had a rather positive cache attached to people were like, you know, when walter cronkite speaks people listen um but that they is gone. there are no more walter crack. it's an american media. american meat is a total cell up to the u. s government, we see that in ukraine today, where it is become a veritable a stenographer for i'm deliberately misleading and falsified intelligence. information leaked by the u. s. government. they've even acknowledged that they've admitted it yet. we're leaking stuff. we know it's not true that we want to get it out there to shape perception. and that's the role of the media today to shape perception. it's no longer to inform people. it's the shape perception. and that

means you're not the media that just means you're simple and out. and you know, as you mentioned in today's day and age, social media deserve as a whole separate address. social media plays an outsider role in our everyday lives . what's their impact on coups, you know, i was involved with iraq back when there wasn't meaningful social media. so we dealt primarily with the legacy media. and one of the ways that we fomented or supported the notion of a coup in iraq was to reprogram the american public to get them to accept it face value. anything negative that was said about saddam hussein and saddam hussein's iraq. and that was largely successful. i mean, i was, somebody was empowered with truth 1st hand truth. i did the chopper 7 years, there was no one had better access to the reality of iraqi weapons of mass destruction status. the me but i couldn't get traction in the mainstream media. they were very successful in down plain what i had to say and exaggerating

a counter opinions. today we have a situation in ukraine where i have taken a contrary and position to the mainstream narrative. and i was able to gain some traction in social media because it's not controlled, or at least we thought it was in control by mainstream me. but what we found out is it actually is thanks to the 20162020 elections. the united states congress and the powers that be, have determined that social media is a through a direct threat to american democracy. because the people who access social media can't be controlled by area of, of it's being shaped by mainstream media. there's alternatives. so the government has put pressure on social media to silence voices of descent. and i've been famously banned from twitter. what control is this have on cruise?

united states again has for some time now been trying to implement a policy of aaliyah digital democracy. it's basically using social media to foment social unrest. it can lead to regime change type activities and targeted nation. so iran has been famously targeted for this of the 2009 green revolution of what's going on today in regards to the, the, the, the, the a, the poor lady who has a, who lost her life in police custody over a job. you know, was she murdered by the iranians? no, she died of a heart attack apparently, according to a video. but that didn't stop on the cia and my 6 and other a foreign elements using social media to create a narrative to create a perception inside iran. the fomented unrest and that's the role of social media today in that, in that regard. but it's not succeeded. there's a couple reasons why one. um, social media is internet based in the internet to be turned off. and that's the end

of it. um, and 2 of the social media works, you know, 2 ways of you. you can promote your idea, but there's a lot of other ideas out there. so oftentimes the targeted information package you're trying to get out, it's looted by other information. that's that. so that's competing for time space on the, on the social media it's a, it's an imperfect platform. um, a lot of people. ready believe there's promise and hope in it for changing the way people think. but at the end of the day, a people think the way they're going to think and um, a tweet or facebook posting isn't going to change that reality. scott ritter. thank you so much for staying with us and talk about that. so you can see a rose by any other name. i forget it at the end of the day, close regime, change intervention, whatever you want to call it, the end result is the same destabilizing of that country,

blood death violence you get the picture. crews are inherently undemocratic. yet the henge ammons, who aid in this, this sort of political destabilization purport to be spreading democracy. i run it. that's going to do it for this week's episode. i've modus operandi the show that big deep into foreign policy. i'm your host manila chan. thank you for tuning and we'll see you again next week to figure out the l. a. ah .

a result from nigeria to let should begin to come in with the routing policies candidate emerging on the southwest in the state of a t p. as the opposition candidate, one majority in the state of puzzle during the flags are reported in several ukraine regions on monday that as our correspondent follows the bottles of russian artillery and then done by while german chancellor. busy fly it's it's and i mentioned to render mowdy to side with the west against russia. the indian leader said daddy is ready to contribute.