https://www.rt.com/op-ed/425751-us-war-military-invade/

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 bullshit.

Rejecting EU attempts to keep Iran deal + staying in Syria = more regime changes on the US mind?

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 US doesn’t care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they’re using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or to harmonize their rock garden. In fact, the US 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 US. 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 US 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 US excited about a new bombing campaign. I’m pretty sure we invaded Madagascar once in the 1970s because they smoked our good weed.)

Merkel must snub Macron’s pandering to Trump war drive

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 rebellion 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 

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 US so eager to turn Syria into a failed state if Syria never dropped the dollar? Your whole stupid theory falls apart right there.”

My experiences of Vietnam War agitprop make me skeptical of West's excuses for bombing Syria

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 US 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 US illegal invasions cloaked in bullshit justifications? Well, last week, Iran finally did it: It switched from the dollar to the euro. And sure enough, this week, the US 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 US)

Or the country that drops hundreds of bombs per day on the Middle East. (It’s the US) 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 killed 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.

>>1292523

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/425751-us-war-military-invade/

>>1292523

Ty though! :D

Afghanistan was a distraction for George W. Bush and North Korea is the same for Donald Trump. While the former set his sights on Iraq, Trump is after Iran – so says Peter Kuznick, a history professor at American University.

Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was officially made Washington's top diplomat for foreign policy Wednesday after he was sworn in as the new secretary of state. He's been given a strong endorsement by President Trump – in stark contrast to his predecessor Rex Tillerson who was often at odds with the commander in chief.

After a series of overseas trips, Pompeo will spend the next several weeks in Washington attempting to pick up where Tillerson left off. However, Kuznick fears US foreign policy might take on a more hostile approach under Pompeo.

RT: Why do you think there's been quite a warm reception for Pompeo in the media, especially compared to Tillerson?

Read more

Pro-regime change Pompeo: Trump’s pick for secretary of state is an outspoken hawk

Peter Kuznick: There has been a positive reception to Mike Pompeo in certain circles, not across the board … because he is not Rex Tillerson. Donald Trump, in announcing that Tillerson was going to be leaving office, said that he disagreed with Tillerson about the Iran policy. That was a key factor. He is not going to disagree with Pompeo because Pompeo is much more hawkish when it comes to the Iran policy. Pompeo as a congressman said that he wanted to tear up the Iran deal; he thought it was a terrible deal. Then as CIA director, he referred to Iran as a “thuggish police state” and “despotic theocracy.”  Clearly, Pompeo is among the real hawks when it comes to Iran policy. He is going to reinforce Donald Trump’s worst tendencies along with John Bolton. Trump is happy to have him. The mass media is happy to have him because Rex Tillerson was missing in action. In fact, I used to joke that Rex Tillerson was in a witness protection program. We never saw him. What did Tillerson do as a secretary of state? He tore up  the bureaucracy of the State Department, slashed the roles at the State Department, he was involved very little in diplomacy. But he was in some ways a more moderating influence on Trump. It was good to have him. Pompeo is not going to be a moderating influence. And that worries me.

RT: What are your thoughts about Pompeo’s stance on North Korea and the future peace treaty between South and North Korea?

Rejecting EU attempts to keep Iran deal + staying in Syria = more regime changes on the US mind?

PK: North Korea was a distraction for Donald Trump in the same way as Afghanistan was a distraction for George W. Bush… George W. Bush wanted to get Afghanistan out of the way so that they could go after Iraq which was his real target. Donald Trump wants to get North Korea out of the way, I fear, so that they can go after Iran, which is his real target. During the campaign he focused on Iran, he said that it is the worst deal ever. He said it was the stupidest deal ever. He said it was lopsided. But he has got his vendetta against Iran which is shared by much of the Republican foreign policy establishment, shared by Trump’s allies in Jerusalem and Riyadh. And that is why the Europeans are so frightened. That is why 100 foreign policy experts, including 50 retired military officials wrote a letter to Trump saying we should not break this deal with Iran. It is in US interests. It is a good deal and Iran has been following it…But there are people in Israel, in Saudi Arabia and in Washington who would like to see the US go to war with Iran…There is a strong hawkish element. I fear that Trump is going to take their advice, the same thing with North Korea. North Korea right now looks very positive. But we know that between now and the time when this deal is concluded there are hundreds of ways that it could blow up. But the situation is a 100 percent better than it was just a few weeks ago. At least we are not threatening each other, we are not calling names, and we are not on a verge of military confrontation which would have been an absolute disaster in every sense. There was no good military scenario. If Pompeo wants to be a moderating force on North Korea, that is great. I hope he will also be a moderating force when it comes to Iran – but I doubt it.  

RT: How different do you think the State Department will actually be under Pompeo's leadership?

PK: That really remains to be seen. The State Department under Pompeo – I think they are going to stop the bleeding. Pompeo in his opening statements has tried to restore a confidence and the spirit of the State Department which is completely demoralized. They haven’t appointed the key people in major positions, they haven’t appointed ambassadors to crucial countries like South Korea, Morocco, other places. They have been totally undermanned, understaffed in the State Department. Pompeo is going to try to stop that, he is going to try to at least make it back into a functioning department. His first trip overseas as secretary of state: he went to Saudi Arabia, went to Israel, went to Jordan, met with the NATO leaders.

The NATO situation is very troubling. Clearly, NATO has been building up its forces in the Baltic States and in Poland, thousands more NATO troops there. The recent statement by the top American general in Europe, top NATO official before Congress is along the lines of the RAND report that just came out…that says that if there is a military confrontation, Russia will win in Eastern Europe, Russia has got far more troops, far more tanks. So, what the officials are saying is that NATO needs to be strengthened. It needs more money, more troops, more tanks…That is a situation that could unravel very quickly. Will Pompeo be a voice for diplomacy, like most secretaries of state have been?  We can only hope so.

RT: Does Pompeo's hawkish rhetoric and belief in American exceptionalism make a good combination for a diplomat?

PK: I think not. I think that Pompeo's hawkish statements over many years, openly brandishing his ideas about American exceptionalism reinforce Donald Trump’s America first policy, his idea of ‘Make America Great Again.’ That is not the message that the world wants…Maybe, Pompeo is getting the message that the world wants him to be a statesman. If he plays that role, he will be rewarded and supported.

https://www.rt.com/usa/425741-mike-pompeo-foreign-policy/

Ooooo weeeee them bots are triggered tonight!

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 bullshit.

Read more

Rejecting EU attempts to keep Iran deal + staying in Syria = more regime changes on the US mind?

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 US doesn’t care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they’re using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or to harmonize their rock garden. In fact, the US 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 US. 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 US 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 US 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 rebellion 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 US 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 US 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 US illegal invasions cloaked in bullshit justifications? Well, last week, Iran finally did it: It switched from the dollar to the euro. And sure enough, this week, the US 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 US)

Or the country that drops hundreds of bombs per day on the Middle East. (It’s the US) 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 killed 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.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/425751-us-war-military-invade/

>>1292727

:D

290

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has slammed Washington for “bullying” other nations against Tehran, and condemned EU states that are dancing to the US tune over the nuclear deal at the expense of Iran.

In a statement published on Thursday on his YouTube channel, Zarif once again lambasted the US for shaking the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The minister reiterated that Iran had never shifted away from the 2015 deal, which has been repeatedly confirmed by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However, some other signatories, and the US in particular, failed to show the same commitment to its obligations, according to Zarif.

“In contrast, the US has consistently violated the nuclear agreement, especially by bullying others from doing business with Iran,” he said.

The minister added that, while US President Donald Trump is “unhappy” with the JCPOA, “the response from some Europeans has been to offer the United States  more concessions from our pocket.”

READ MORE: The Iran nuclear deal explained

Indeed, Trump’s constant criticism and demands to “fix” the supposed flaws of the 2015 deal did not fully amend the position of its European signatories – the UK, France and Germany – the leaders of which are against scrapping the agreement. But they now want to address“important elements that the deal does not cover,” including Iranian ballistic missiles. Tehran argues that any new deal would cover “defensive capabilities and regional influence” among other things that were excluded from the outset of the negotiations in 2015.

"Let me make it clear absolutely and once for all: we will neither outsource our security, nor will we renegotiate or add on to a deal we have already implemented in good faith," Zarif stated.

READ MORE: Rejecting EU attempts to keep Iran deal + staying in Syria = more regime changes on the US mind?

As the deadline looms for Trump to sign the waiver for the JCPOA, which caps Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability in exchange for economic sanctions relief, Tehran is still warning the US against pulling out.

“The US is well advised to finally start honoring its commitments, or it, and only it, will have to accept responsibility for the consequences of not doing so,” the foreign minister concluded.

Earlier on Thursday, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also stood up in defense of the Iran nuclear deal. He warned that, so long as there is no better alternative, the agreement should be preserved. 

https://www.rt.com/news/425776-us-bullying-nuclear-deal/

>>1292808

Kinda looks like BRICKS lol!

ATTENTION ATTENTION!!

RUSSIAN ALLIES ARE NOW CONSIDERED ROGUE STATES.

Go figure. 1+1=2

>>1292843

Didn't Wesley Clark mention these Names? We are watching a known agenda unfold. And people are making memes for it.

Smh.