I Know Which Country the U.S. Will Invade Next
May 3, 2018 21:54:58 #
Can you connect the dots yet or do you need more help ?
How was Trump C*********d and when did it happen?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MAY 02, 2018
I Know Which Country the U.S. Will Invade Next
By: Lee Camp Contributor
TD Originals
A U.S. Army soldier on patrol in Iraq in 2008. (Sgt. Timothy Kingston, U.S. Army / Wikimedia)
By the end of this column, it will be clear which country the United States will invade and topple next. Or failing that, it will be clear which country our military-intelligence-industrial complex will be aching to invade next.
We all want to know why America does what it does. And I don’t mean why Americans do what we do. I think that question still will be pondered eons from now by a future professor showing his students a video mind-meld of present-day UFC fighters booting each other in the head while thrilled onlookers cheer (not for either of the fighters but rather for more booting in the head).
But we all seem to assume that America—the entity, the corporation—has some sort of larger reasoning behind the actions it takes, the actions put forward by the ruling elite. And almost all of us know that the reasons we’re given by the press secretaries and caricature-shaped heads on the nightly news are the ripest, most fetid grade of bulls**t.
We now know that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. We now know that the crushing of Libya had nothing to do with “stopping a bad man.” If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you’ll find that the U.S. doesn’t care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they’re using their free time to k**l thousands of innocent people or to harmonize their rock garden. In fact, the U.S. gives military aid to 70 percent of the world’s dictators. (One would hope that’s only around the holidays though.)
So if it’s not for the stated reasons, why does the U.S. overrun, topple and sometimes occupy the countries it does? Obviously, there are oil resources or rare minerals to be had. But there’s something else that links almost all of our recent wars.
As The Guardian reported near the beginning of the Iraq War, “In October 2000, Iraq insisted on dumping the U.S. dollar—the currency of the enemy—for the more multilateral euro.”
However, one example does not make a trend. If it did, I would be a world-renowned beer pong champion rather than touting a 1-27 record. (I certainly can’t go pro with those numbers.)
But there’s more. Soon after Libya began moving toward an African gold-based currency—and lining up all its African neighbors to join it—we invaded it as well, with the help of NATO. Author Ellen Brown pointed this out at the time of the invasion:
[Moammar Gadhafi] initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar.
John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” also has said that the true reason for the attack on Libya was Gadhafi’s move away from the dollar and the euro.
This week, The Intercept reported that the ousting of Gadhafi, which was in many ways led by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, actually had to do with Sarkozy secretly receiving millions from Gadhafi, and it seemed that his corruption was about to be revealed. But, the article also noted, “[Sarkozy’s] real military zeal and desire for regime change came only after [Hillary] Clinton and the Arab League broadcasted their desire to see [Gadhafi] go.” And the fact that Gadhafi was planning to upend the petrodollar in Africa certainly provides the motivation necessary. (It doesn’t take much to get the U.S. excited about a new bombing campaign. I’m pretty sure we invaded Madagascar once in the 1970s because they smoked our good weed.)
Right now you may be thinking, “But, Lee, your theory is ridiculous. If these invasions were about the banking, then the rebels in Libya—getting help from NATO and the United States—would have set up a new banking system after bringing down Gadhafi.”
Actually, they didn’t wait that long. In the middle of the brutal war, the Libyan rebels formed their own central bank.
Brown said, “Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their r*******n in March to create their own central bank—this before they even had a government.”
Wow, that sure does sound like it’s all about the banking.
Many of you know about Gen. Wesley Clark’s famous quote about seven countries in five years. Clark is a four-star general, the former head of NATO Supreme Allied Command, and he ran for president in 2008 (clearly he’s an underachiever). But it’s quite possible that 100 years from now, the one thing he’ll be remembered for is the fact that he told us that the Pentagon said to him in 2002: “We’re going to take down seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan. We’re going to come back and get Iran in five years.”
Most of this has happened. We have, of course, added some countries to the list, such as Yemen. We’re helping to destroy Yemen largely to make Saudi Arabia happy. Apparently our government/media care only about Syrian children (in order to justify regime change). We couldn’t care less about Yemeni children, Iraqi children, Afghan children, Palestinian children, North Korean children, Somali children, Flint (Michigan) children, Baltimore children, Native American children, Puerto Rican children, Na’vi children … oh wait, I think that’s from “Avatar.” Was that fiction? My memories and 3-D movies are starting to blur together.
Brown goes even further in her analysis of Clark’s bombshell:
What do these seven countries have in common? … [N]one of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland. The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked.
What I’m trying to say is: It’s all about the banking.
So right now you’re thinking, “But, Lee, then why is the U.S. so eager to turn Syria into a failed state if Syria never dropped the dollar? Your whole stupid theory falls apart right there.”
First, I don’t appreciate your tone. Second, in February 2006, Syria dropped the dollar as its primary hard currency.
I think I’m noticing a trend. In fact, on Jan. 4, it was reported that Pakistan was ditching the dollar in its trade with China, and that same day, the U.S. placed it on the watch list for religious freedom violations. The same day? Are we really supposed to believe that it just so happened that Pakistan stopped using the dollar with China on the same day it started punching Christians in the nose for no good reason? No, clearly Pakistan had violated our religion of cold hard cash.
This leaves only one question: Who will be next on the list of U.S. illegal invasions cloaked in bulls**t justifications? Well, last week, Iran finally did it: It switched from the dollar to the euro. And sure enough, this week, the U.S. military-industrial complex, the corporate media and Israel all got together to claim that Iran is lying about its nuclear weapons development. What are the odds that this news would break within days of Iran dropping the dollar? What. Are. The. Odds?
The one nice thing about our corporate state’s manufacturing of consent is how predictable it is. We will now see the mainstream media running an increasing number of reports pushing the idea that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism and is trying to develop nuclear weapons (which are WMDs, but for some strange reason, our media are shying away from saying, “They have WMDs”). Here’s a 2017 PBS article claiming that Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism. One must assume this list of terror sponsors does not include the country that made the arms that significantly enhanced Islamic State’s military capabilities. (It’s the U.S.)
Or the country that drops hundreds of bombs per day on the Middle East. (It’s the U.S.) But those bombs don’t cause any terror. Those are the happy bombs, clearly. Apparently, we just drop 1995 Richard Simmons down on unsuspecting people.
Point is, as we watch our pathetic corporate media continue their manufacturing of consent for war with Iran, don’t fall for it. These wars are all about the banking. And millions of innocent people are k**led in them. Millions more have their lives destroyed.
You and I are just pawns in this game, and the last thing the ruling elite want are pawns who question the official narrative.
How was Trump C*********d and when did it happen?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MAY 02, 2018
I Know Which Country the U.S. Will Invade Next
By: Lee Camp Contributor
TD Originals
A U.S. Army soldier on patrol in Iraq in 2008. (Sgt. Timothy Kingston, U.S. Army / Wikimedia)
By the end of this column, it will be clear which country the United States will invade and topple next. Or failing that, it will be clear which country our military-intelligence-industrial complex will be aching to invade next.
We all want to know why America does what it does. And I don’t mean why Americans do what we do. I think that question still will be pondered eons from now by a future professor showing his students a video mind-meld of present-day UFC fighters booting each other in the head while thrilled onlookers cheer (not for either of the fighters but rather for more booting in the head).
But we all seem to assume that America—the entity, the corporation—has some sort of larger reasoning behind the actions it takes, the actions put forward by the ruling elite. And almost all of us know that the reasons we’re given by the press secretaries and caricature-shaped heads on the nightly news are the ripest, most fetid grade of bulls**t.
We now know that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. We now know that the crushing of Libya had nothing to do with “stopping a bad man.” If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you’ll find that the U.S. doesn’t care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they’re using their free time to k**l thousands of innocent people or to harmonize their rock garden. In fact, the U.S. gives military aid to 70 percent of the world’s dictators. (One would hope that’s only around the holidays though.)
So if it’s not for the stated reasons, why does the U.S. overrun, topple and sometimes occupy the countries it does? Obviously, there are oil resources or rare minerals to be had. But there’s something else that links almost all of our recent wars.
As The Guardian reported near the beginning of the Iraq War, “In October 2000, Iraq insisted on dumping the U.S. dollar—the currency of the enemy—for the more multilateral euro.”
However, one example does not make a trend. If it did, I would be a world-renowned beer pong champion rather than touting a 1-27 record. (I certainly can’t go pro with those numbers.)
But there’s more. Soon after Libya began moving toward an African gold-based currency—and lining up all its African neighbors to join it—we invaded it as well, with the help of NATO. Author Ellen Brown pointed this out at the time of the invasion:
[Moammar Gadhafi] initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar.
John Perkins, author of “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” also has said that the true reason for the attack on Libya was Gadhafi’s move away from the dollar and the euro.
This week, The Intercept reported that the ousting of Gadhafi, which was in many ways led by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, actually had to do with Sarkozy secretly receiving millions from Gadhafi, and it seemed that his corruption was about to be revealed. But, the article also noted, “[Sarkozy’s] real military zeal and desire for regime change came only after [Hillary] Clinton and the Arab League broadcasted their desire to see [Gadhafi] go.” And the fact that Gadhafi was planning to upend the petrodollar in Africa certainly provides the motivation necessary. (It doesn’t take much to get the U.S. excited about a new bombing campaign. I’m pretty sure we invaded Madagascar once in the 1970s because they smoked our good weed.)
Right now you may be thinking, “But, Lee, your theory is ridiculous. If these invasions were about the banking, then the rebels in Libya—getting help from NATO and the United States—would have set up a new banking system after bringing down Gadhafi.”
Actually, they didn’t wait that long. In the middle of the brutal war, the Libyan rebels formed their own central bank.
Brown said, “Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their r*******n in March to create their own central bank—this before they even had a government.”
Wow, that sure does sound like it’s all about the banking.
Many of you know about Gen. Wesley Clark’s famous quote about seven countries in five years. Clark is a four-star general, the former head of NATO Supreme Allied Command, and he ran for president in 2008 (clearly he’s an underachiever). But it’s quite possible that 100 years from now, the one thing he’ll be remembered for is the fact that he told us that the Pentagon said to him in 2002: “We’re going to take down seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan. We’re going to come back and get Iran in five years.”
Most of this has happened. We have, of course, added some countries to the list, such as Yemen. We’re helping to destroy Yemen largely to make Saudi Arabia happy. Apparently our government/media care only about Syrian children (in order to justify regime change). We couldn’t care less about Yemeni children, Iraqi children, Afghan children, Palestinian children, North Korean children, Somali children, Flint (Michigan) children, Baltimore children, Native American children, Puerto Rican children, Na’vi children … oh wait, I think that’s from “Avatar.” Was that fiction? My memories and 3-D movies are starting to blur together.
Brown goes even further in her analysis of Clark’s bombshell:
What do these seven countries have in common? … [N]one of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland. The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked.
What I’m trying to say is: It’s all about the banking.
So right now you’re thinking, “But, Lee, then why is the U.S. so eager to turn Syria into a failed state if Syria never dropped the dollar? Your whole stupid theory falls apart right there.”
First, I don’t appreciate your tone. Second, in February 2006, Syria dropped the dollar as its primary hard currency.
I think I’m noticing a trend. In fact, on Jan. 4, it was reported that Pakistan was ditching the dollar in its trade with China, and that same day, the U.S. placed it on the watch list for religious freedom violations. The same day? Are we really supposed to believe that it just so happened that Pakistan stopped using the dollar with China on the same day it started punching Christians in the nose for no good reason? No, clearly Pakistan had violated our religion of cold hard cash.
This leaves only one question: Who will be next on the list of U.S. illegal invasions cloaked in bulls**t justifications? Well, last week, Iran finally did it: It switched from the dollar to the euro. And sure enough, this week, the U.S. military-industrial complex, the corporate media and Israel all got together to claim that Iran is lying about its nuclear weapons development. What are the odds that this news would break within days of Iran dropping the dollar? What. Are. The. Odds?
The one nice thing about our corporate state’s manufacturing of consent is how predictable it is. We will now see the mainstream media running an increasing number of reports pushing the idea that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism and is trying to develop nuclear weapons (which are WMDs, but for some strange reason, our media are shying away from saying, “They have WMDs”). Here’s a 2017 PBS article claiming that Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism. One must assume this list of terror sponsors does not include the country that made the arms that significantly enhanced Islamic State’s military capabilities. (It’s the U.S.)
Or the country that drops hundreds of bombs per day on the Middle East. (It’s the U.S.) But those bombs don’t cause any terror. Those are the happy bombs, clearly. Apparently, we just drop 1995 Richard Simmons down on unsuspecting people.
Point is, as we watch our pathetic corporate media continue their manufacturing of consent for war with Iran, don’t fall for it. These wars are all about the banking. And millions of innocent people are k**led in them. Millions more have their lives destroyed.
You and I are just pawns in this game, and the last thing the ruling elite want are pawns who question the official narrative.
May 3, 2018 22:04:37 #
Sicilianthing wrote:
I haven't heard a peep out of the corporate media about manufacturing consent for war with Iran, quite the opposite actually. The media loves those Islamon**i bastards. If there is ever a war with Iran, Iran will start it.Can you connect the dots yet or do you need more h... (show quote)
May 3, 2018 22:21:19 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
I haven't heard a peep out of the corporate media about manufacturing consent for war with Iran, quite the opposite actually. The media loves those Islamon**i bastards. If there is ever a war with Iran, Iran will start it.
>>>>
IDK and neither do you but one thing is for sure Trump moved the Largest Armada since the Invasion of Iraq to the Gulf in the sneak of night over the past 2 weeks for what ?
I’ll take bets a false f**g is coming to get us into another warattackinvasions**m !
May 3, 2018 22:38:14 #
Sicilianthing wrote:
>>>>
IDK and neither do you but one thing is for sure Trump moved the Largest Armada since the Invasion of Iraq to the Gulf in the sneak of night over the past 2 weeks for what ?
I’ll take bets a false f**g is coming to get us into another warattackinvasions**m !
IDK and neither do you but one thing is for sure Trump moved the Largest Armada since the Invasion of Iraq to the Gulf in the sneak of night over the past 2 weeks for what ?
I’ll take bets a false f**g is coming to get us into another warattackinvasions**m !
You are probably correct on your bet.
I also believe that the Petrodollar is our worst enemy when it comes to our Economy. Making the Big Banksters our foes in this battle.
Great post
May 3, 2018 22:40:48 #
Weasel wrote:
You are probably correct on your bet.
I also believe that the Petrodollar is our worst enemy when it comes to our Economy. Making the Big Banksters our foes in this battle.
Great post
I also believe that the Petrodollar is our worst enemy when it comes to our Economy. Making the Big Banksters our foes in this battle.
Great post
>>>>
Thanks Weasel, yep I keep looking everyday for any actions Trump is doing or not doing that aligns with the Bankster families the 8 usual suspects who own it all...
May 4, 2018 08:47:15 #
lpnmajor
Loc: Arkansas
Sicilianthing wrote:
Can you connect the dots yet or do you need more h... (show quote)
Ever notice no one discusses too much about the fact that Saudi Arabia financed the 9/11 attacks? The intelligence services quickly identified the hijackers, and how they pulled it off, almost as though they had the information all along. No one explained how an exiled Saudi Prince was able to recruit Saudis to commit the attacks, while his base of operations was supposedly in Afghanistan. How long was Bin Laden living in Pakistan anyway? The point is, there was no credible evidence available at the time, that pinpointed Afghanistan as the base of operations for the terrorist attack....................so why did we invade there first? Simple: the war lords were no longer using the dollar as their currency exchange for their poppy syrup.
How were the wall street bankers supposed to get a cut of the multi billion dollar opium trade, if Rubles were being used instead of dollars? Well, we invaded, destroyed a few poppy fields as a warning, paid the warlords 100's of millions in cash.........and viola! the dollar is back! No one seems too interested in explaining why the Mexican and Columbian cartels use the dollar exclusively in the drug trade - they do it because it's damn good business. How many billions do we spend every year on the "war on drugs"? The war that only INCREASES the amount of drugs available? A simple statistical analysis suggests that we'd reduce the drug problem overnight - by eliminating the DEA and stopped spending money on the drug war. We'd save billions paying for treatment for everybody......no demand..................no supply. We don't do what common sense says we should.......................because there's no ^@#$ money to be made by the bankers that way.
The bankers are not the financing arm for the Oligarchs - they're the enforcers.
May 4, 2018 10:50:36 #
lpnmajor wrote:
Ever notice no one discusses too much about the fa... (show quote)
>>>>
Another Fantastic Post Major...
Actually the Cartels use Dollars because if they didn’t the Bankster Oligarchs would send in the Entire CIA Hit Teams and Murder everyone.
Trump knows this yet he Does NOTHING !
Trump has been c*********d by various flanks he was unaware of when he took office.
3 Critical Dates Approach to exposing Trumps demise...
July 4th
Oct 1 and
Dec 31st...
Read these words people... Know this...
Trump is in Serious Trouble and you all need to start preparing for Plans B and C !
May 5, 2018 02:34:12 #
king hall
Loc: Tucson,AZ.
Sicilianthing wrote:
Can you connect the dots yet or do you need more h... (show quote)
4 points: 1) your theory is not ridiculous but spot on. I sincerely mean that.
2) Iraq did have WMD in that the Iraqi government had established with China & Russia an exit strategy 'petrodollar in favor or the yuan/rubble
3) 2 years ago China offered South America and Pakistan; 'come with us and we will provide you broadband, build software distribution centers and free your governments from the petrodollar. So. Am. declined but Pakistan agreed. However, rather than invade the Pakis the following scenario will develop. (FACT: Korea is divided because of China) Korea will reunite giving the US a huge win on the world stage while China gets Pakistan and continues to hold US debt. (the steel/aluminum tariffs? This is where President Trump will show his brilliance. And it's why we've seen a changing of the guard w/ Secretary of State. The Tariff talk/threats is a preemptive move to halt China's intention of dumping product onto NOKO just prior to any reuniting)
4) Gadhafi's military education was proudly provided by our very own CIA blessed by our Congress. (Google his accomplishments as a countryman)
FOOTNOTE: So. AM. did not decline China's offer of economic stimulus & stability on its own. The US explained, among other points of economic support, there would be no more acceptance of caravan refugees. All who are interested may fact-check each of these points and my footnote. It's all in the archives. China, with its annexing of Pakistan, will become the 'calming agent' in the middle east.
May 5, 2018 09:49:15 #
king hall wrote:
4 points: 1) your theory is not ridiculous but spo... (show quote)
>>>>
Hmm Thank You and very interesting about Paki, I did not know the ChiComs actually acquired the sick n twisted paki’s wonder how that’s going to work out with all their lunatic Muslims.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.