US Next War

[Mack]

Im not condoning any sort of War or killing I'm just saying that's the way it is

[Lana]

It's all about petrodollar...Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq and Russia have something in common:

''They have all been a victim of American aggression in one form or another – either a military attack or economic sanctions. Washington uses ethical pretexts, such as “protecting civilians” or “promoting democracy”, to act belligerently towards these nations, but due to its hypocritical nature of supporting dictators throughout the world and its disregard for human rights, this excuse is a fabrication.
The real reason for singling out these countries is the petrodollar system, a scheme that enables America to stay afloat despite being more than $17 trillion in debt. The existence of petrodollars is one of the pillars of America’s economic might, because it creates a significant external demand for the American currency, allowing the U.S. to accumulate enormous debts without defaulting.'' Alexander Clackson
Global Research, September 18, 2014 ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-r ... 92?print=1)

''Is there any wonder why the US policy makers seems to be in a perpetual war with oil rich nations that go against their plans of world financial dominance? Yet, when their oil rich ally Saudi Arabia beheads its own citizens, en masse, or performs brutal war crimes against its neighbors, like in the recent war with Yemen to oust its leader, no one in the MSM barely notices. All this using US made warplanes to drop US made bombs on wedding parties and hospitals, they get no mention in the mainstream media or by the US government. I wonder what response they would have if Syria or Iran did the same thing? ''
http://www.freemarketcapitalism.com/new ... etrodollar

[DezNutz]

While the US may have adopted a strong policy of domestic production and reduction of imported oil, that doesnt mean its energy corporations play any lesser role in oil production and distribution worldwide. So, I'd advise you do some basic research as to how the oil industry in Iraq was re-structured under the US-backed regime. The oil is all owned and exported by Iraq : other nations corporations get paid a 'service fee' to actually run the oilfields. Its a generous fee, at one point when oil prices dropped seriously, the Iraqi government was paying them more to extract it than they were getting at market. So, no US, or any foreign, company owns the oil, or sells it at market : but they certainly are earning fat profits 'servicing' the Iraqi industry. Its a business model much favored by corporations : the State takes the ownership and covers the market risks, the corporation takes the profits (but calls them 'service fees, consultancy charges, etc, etc) and thus avoids any losses.

I didn't say the US didn't import oil. I said that the US didn't import oil from Iraq. If the goal of going to war was to gain access to that oil, wouldn't we being importing that oil. The premise that the whole purpose was solely for US corporate access is BS, as once we left, nothing prevents the host nation from booting out the US corporations and using other sources to pump out the oil.

[DezNutz]

I spoke in haste, it has been a long and stressful day, allow me to explain it to you properly.....
The only reason any government cares about the internal affairs of another country is the resources to be gained and controlled.
Do you really think a government is going to waste millions defending non tax-payers?
The US and the UK have supported and armed many harsh regimes and only stopped protecting the crazy dictators when they stopped selling them oil/gas or whatever.
This whole Syria situation is because of a gas/oil pipeline that flows from there to Russia.
Neither government cares who runs the country just as long as the fuel keeps flowing.
The Iraq war began when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait, which seriously disrupted the oil supply to both the US and the UK.
(Danik beat me to it well said that man!)

Grenada and Kosovo. Seem to be contradictions to your statement.

[Grapefruit]

I cant be sure of my facts here,
I haven`t the time to check facts right now,
but i thought but i thought that in both Grenada and Kosovo,
outside intervention came only after the genocide,
and was funded by the United Nations.

[Most Lee Harmless]

I cant be sure of my facts here,
I haven`t the time to check facts right now,
but i thought but i thought that in both Grenada and Kosovo,
outside intervention came only after the genocide,
and was funded by the United Nations.

Grenada genocide? Methinks you do need to check your facts there.

Also, the invasion of Grenada and the removal of the leftist government there was not a UN sanctioned event, rather, a (edit) US venture based on an alleged threat to the well-being of US citizens resident there. That Cuba was financing and building an international airport there had been a bone of contention for the USA, who felt it was intended for military use against the USA, rather than to promote the tourist industry on the island. The mighty Grenadan Air Force has terrified many, mainly its passengers, but most doubt it could ever have been considered a serious threat to the USA being lacking in any air-planes, warlike or other wise....

Edit : there was some support from other Caribbean states for the US intervention, along with a token force of about 300 accompanying the 8000 strong US forces. The UN actually voted in favor of a motion condemning the invasion and the events leading up to it.

[ChaIbaud]

Survival of the fittest. What an ignorant thing to say. "Survival of the fittest." It is "Survival of the fittest" until you are deemed unfit. What then. Then you go right? You go and die. That is all there is to genocide, murder, war, man-made famines.


Survival of the fittest.

A new vocabulary to hide the sins of the past and an excuse to continue onward.

You might think it's not right but it's true. If you aren't adapting with what the environment requires of you then you will be passed along. It's not an excuse to keep doing wrong, it's a reason to continue progress rolling.

[Lana]

I cant be sure of my facts here,
I haven`t the time to check facts right now,
but i thought but i thought that in both Grenada and Kosovo,
outside intervention came only after the genocide,
and was funded by the United Nations.

Maybe you should read this:
http://iacenter.org/warcrime/15_econ.htm

and this too:
https://sputniknews.com/europe/20160917 ... -albright/

And btw, conflict in Kosovo started much much earlier than 1999... and the victims were Kosovo's Serbs, but it's a very long story and you have to live there to understand the historical background and its consequences. In short, Kosovo was ideally place for a world political and war playground.
And don't forget NATO attack was carried out without the permission of the United Nations and was the largest show of force military alliance that the world has seen, against a small, lonely and by economic sanctions exhausted country. As a pretext for intervention served as accusations that the Yugoslav and Serbian authorities systematically carry out ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians and rejection of the Rambouillet agreement by the Yugoslav authorities.

NATO during the bombardment of Yugoslavia used depleted uranium, as well as a cluster bomb for bombardment civilian targets, which is prohibited under the Geneva Convention. NATO has launched a total of 1,300 cruise missiles, delivered 37,000 "cluster bombs". Only the result of cluster bombs during the bombing killed 200 people and wounded hundreds. On the territory of Serbia is thrown around 1,000 bombs at 219 sites over an area of 23 thousand square kilometers. (all this data concerning Serbia)

The third (fourth) Yugoslavia-Serbia, Montenegro (and Kosovo as a part of Serbia) were used for testing stealth bomber F-117 and B-2, among other things and Nato base ''Bondsteel'' was built in the territory of Kosovo. Not all war were waged because of oil, but someones profit is behind all wars.
Just remember that NATO existence, after the demolition of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union was called into question... but after Kosovo, no more...

[Most Lee Harmless]

The phrase 'Survival of the fittest' is often misconstrued to mean survival of the strongest, or cleverest, or mightiest : that is not its actual meaning at all : its not fit as in strength, or smarts, or power but 'fit' as in fitting in : that which is best adapted to its environment will thrive and therefore pass on more of it 'fit' genes to further generations : the nice thing about Darwins Theory is that it doesnt mean only the fittest genes will get passed on, just that they are more likely to be passed on : thus we will still have the idiot gene infecting humanity because, who knows, one day it may well be the 'fittest' and thus having enough idiots around will go someway to ensuring the survival of the species : yeah, that is a worrying thought...

[Mack]

Thats why i think we should calm the idiots by doing things to let them know they cant win