>>1318685

LOL!

>>1318691

Yes. You really had to ask that.

Tehran has the capacity to withstand Donald Trump’s “bullying,” but his drive to revise or unilaterally scrap the 2015 nuclear deal undermines any credibility Washington might still have, a top Iranian security official has noted.

“This is an international agreement … and we certainly have the capacity to defeat your [Donald Trump's] bullying,” Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), told senior police commanders in Tehran on Saturday.

‘Bullying others’: Iranian FM slams US over its handling of nuclear deal

Iran, he stressed, refuses to renegotiate the crucial P5+1 nuclear agreement, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), noting that the country has no trust in the US leadership to honor its commitment.

“If the incumbent US president does not accept the agreements signed by his predecessors in the previous administration, then assuredly no country in the world is able to trust the US because it is also possible to see the coming administration do not accept the agreements brokered by Trumps’ administration,” the admiral asserted.

“Who, then, guarantees that if something is done with you, the next president won't come and refuse to accept it?” he wondered.

With the May 12 deadline to re-certify the JCPOA looming, Donald Trump has repeatedly warned that Washington will unilaterally pull out unless some critical “flaws” of the deal –such as the absence of limits on any ballistic missile program– are not ‘fixed’. The US State Department even sent a diplomatic mission to the UK, Germany and France to rally support for its plan to amend or to scrap the agreement, the “spirit” of which Tehran is accused of breaching.

So far the European signatories remain committed to the agreement and have urged to White House to honor the deal, which is seen as one of the crucial cornerstones of regional and world security. Israel, however, which relentlessly lobbied the Obama administration not to sign the nuclear deal, at the start of the week made a pompous presentation, once again accusing Iran of “lying” about its nuclear program.

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.

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:

[Muammar Gaddafi] 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 Gaddafi’s move away from the dollar and the euro.

This week, The Intercept reported that the ousting of Gaddafi, which was in many ways led by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, actually had to do with Sarkozy secretly receiving millions from Gaddafi, 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 [Gaddafi] go.” And the fact that Gaddafi 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 Gaddafi.”

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.

FOR THE FREE THINKERS.

Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, says the president is committed to regime change in Iran and will most likely tear up the nuclear deal before he begins supporting protesters to oust the supreme leader from power.

“We got a president who is tough, who does not listen to the people who are naysayers, and a president who is as committed to regime change as we are,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani – US President Donald Trump’s personal friend and a long-time supporter – said in a speech to the Iran Freedom Convention for Democracy and Human Rights in Washington.

The first order of business in bringing about regime change in Iran would be to tear up the 2015 nuclear deal, which Trump is set to either reject or approve before the May 12 deadline. Giuliani, who is not part of the government, believes the president will tear up the agreement – despite the insistence of European allies to preserve the milestone accord – and Trump’s so-called “war” cabinet will help him do the job.

“With Secretary of State Pompeo now on his right hand and his national security advisor John Bolton… on his left side, what do you think is going to happen to that agreement, that nuclear agreement?” Giuliani asked, smiling and indicating to the crowd that Trump will simply rip it up and spit on it.

Iran has been outspoken about Washington’s plans to leave the nuclear deal. President Hassan Rouhani stated on Sunday that the US would regret the decision.

“If America leaves the nuclear accord, this will entail historic remorse for it,” he said in a speech carried live by state television.

Scrapping the deal would also mean Washington will lose its face on international arena, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), said on Saturday. Given that this is “an international agreement,” withdrawing would mean that “no country in the world is able to trust the US because it is also possible to see the coming administration do not accept the agreements brokered by Trumps’ administration.”

Giuliani also said in his speech that once the deal is gone and “sanctions [are] back, we have a real chance of escalating these protests,” referring to series of public protests in various cities throughout Iran beginning in late December 2017 and continuing into early 2018.

The White House has yet to comment on Giuliani’s statement, but it seems to be in line with the president’s views.

“TIME FOR CHANGE!” Trump tweeted at the height of recent protests in Iran, adding that “the great Iranian people have been repressed for many years.”

While the US government was quick to claim the protests were anti-government in nature, they might have missed the point. According to a poll conducted by the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland and IranPoll, only 0.3 percent of Iranians chose “lack of civil liberties” as the most important problem or challenge facing the country. “Injustice” was also low on the list (1.4 percent). Unemployment came in first at 40.1 percent, followed by inflation and high cost of living (12.5 percent), and youth unemployment (9.4 percent). 

“The middle class, who took to the streets, are asking for more economic reforms, asking for more jobs and employment, [for] better standards of living,” Ahmed al-Burai, a lecturer at Aydin University in Istanbul, told RT at the time. 

Go figure. Regime change tactic. AGAIN!

>>1318791

Yes. We know that. These Trump tards apparently do not.

>>1318899

Pic or it isnt true

>>1318941

Why do eyes shine at night?

>>1318983

What am I sniveling about? That I think Trump, Obama and Hilary are al the same?

Are you thick?

Regime change. War. Regime. War.

Troops out of Syria.

Fake chemical attack.

Bomb Syria.

Stay in Syria.

Bomb Afghanistan.

Attack Iran.

What exactly has changes in 20 years? Please tell me!

BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME FUCKING CYCLE YOU STUPID FUCK.

>>1319062

>>1319034

From sniveling to notable.

LOL! You fuck tard

>>1319065

Link for notable

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

>>1319207

Not much! Trust the PLAN? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

>>1319207

You are a waste of oxygen. Later skater.

President Donald Trump has made a surprise announcement that US forces will be withdrawing from Syria, citing the defeat of Islamic State and the need to defend US borders and rebuild “crumbling” infrastructure.

“We're coming out of Syria very soon. Let the other people take care of it now,” Trump said during a speech in Richfield, Ohio on Thursday, dedicated to his infrastructure initiative.

The US spent $7 trillion in the Middle East, Trump said, describing how the US would build schools only for insurgents to destroy them, while there was no funding to build schools in Ohio.

“We build a school, they blow it up. We rebuild the school, they haven’t blown it up yet, but they will,” he said.

The president also pointed out the “wall” and 32,000 US troops guarding the border between North and South Korea, while the US border with Mexico was not likewise protected.

“Is there something a little bit wrong with that?” he asked the crowd.

Trump’s remarks about Syria are in line with what he said last month, at a press conference in Washington with Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull.

“We're there for one reason: to get ISIS and get rid of ISIS, and to go home,” the US president had said. “We’re not there for any other reason and we’ve largely accomplished our goal.”

However, this goes against the previous pronouncements of his subordinates at the State Department and the military.

In January, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson outlined a plan that envisioned extended US presence in Syria to ensure a peaceful transfer of power to a “post-Assad leadership.” In December last year, the Pentagon said US troops would remain in Syria for “as long as we need to, to support our partners and prevent the return of terrorist groups.”

Are the troops OUT?