https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aNKdjcNsAY

US Sent Top Diplomat with $200M to Bribe Niger Coup Leader but he refused

Horus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aNKdjcNsAY

US Sent Top Diplomat with $200M to Bribe Niger Coup Leader but he refused

The US did not go with guns and warplanes, they went with money.
I mean ...

panafrican:




The US did not go with guns and warplanes, they went with money.
I mean ...

It’s all about US interest. You are mistaking if you really think for once US cares about democracy in Niger. It’s all about the resources period.

I wonder where the brainwashing that people of you got your brainwashing from.








quote author=Horus post=125205067]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aNKdjcNsAY

US Sent Top Diplomat with $200M to Bribe Niger Coup Leader but he refused[/quote]

Jbleenk:


It’s all about US interest. You are mistaking if you really think for once US cares about democracy in Niger. It’s all about the resources period.

I hope they don’t try to use drone bombs next
They’d probably go through Ecowas next

Have Americans turned into beggars? Why did they offer so little?
The leader of the junta of Niger received a Western education, so he knows perfectly well that if the case works out, he will get much, much more

Is the West trying to buy the natives again for a bunch of glass beads? If so, then the West is becoming ridiculous

You go explain tire no evidence

If USA wants the coup leaders Out they would be Out, for now they are not yet interested Niger has nothing to give or take from them.

The idea of US bribing a leader is laughable and if it was true then the leader must be very foolish not to accept.

Jbleenk:


It’s all about US interest. You are mistaking if you really think for once US cares about democracy in Niger. It’s all about the resources period.

Take the money , thank the US for the grant , then hold your ground.

danvon:
You go explain tire no evidence

If USA wants the coup leaders Out they would be Out, for now they are not yet interested Niger has nothing to give or take from them.

The idea of US bribing a leader is laughable and if it was true then the leader must be very foolish not to accept.

The US has a history of paying top dollars to terrorist cells, seperatists and rebel movements, etc. This isn't new.

panafrican:

Take the money , thank the US for the grant , then hold your ground.

lol once you take the money you have committed yourself you must get the job done no matter what

Col Richard h black retired.


Lt me just point out the illusion of Russian and Chinese aggression around the world. You hear this repeated many, many times that, you know, any day, you know, Russia's going to take over the entire world.

China is taking over the world. They're doing all this stuff. If you look at the the number of foreign bases between the US and the UK, we have about 900 overseas military bases, bases where we have troops stationed in foreign countries.

The total bases of the the Russians and the Chinese are about 35 or 35 in total. China only has five overseas bases compared to the 900 or so US UK. This we've created this bizarre illusion because the deep state, the war industrial complex must have enemies. You cannot manufacture weapons when you don't have enemies.

And so we create this illusion that they're coming to get us. They're they're on our doorstep. And the fact of the matter is that China is out to make a buck. They want money. They. Yes, they they the Belt and Road Initiative is very important, but they have a different paradigm. Our paradigm is we we go into a country, we set up NGOs. We take over, you know, the government by coup.

If we can't, then we just we just bomb the place to smithereens half the time. And you compare that with the with the foreign policy of China, which is you go in, you work with whatever government is there, you don't you don't you're not judgmental, but you make hard business decisions. You make investments.

And I think for people who are comparing the foreign aid paradigm of of the US and China, they're saying, you know, my my my likelihood of surviving is much higher if I follow the Chinese paradigm. So we need we need to just get away from this feeling that we have to constantly be at war with the entire world. You know, Great Britain has the the 21 mile English Channel that's separates it from Europe.

And that 21 miles has kept it quite, quite safe from from invasion over, you know, many, many centuries. There have been a couple of exceptions. And the Vikings came in and different different things, bigger ones than that. But but in any event, they're basically safe. 21 miles of ocean.

You look at us, we've got 5000, 6000 miles of oceans separating us from the nearest threats that we perceive. So we probably have less reason to be militaristic than any great nation on earth. And yet here we are. We our budget is the last I checked, it was it was as large as the next largest 11 defense budgets of the biggest defense spenders in the world. So we had we had a single check to Ukraine that is as big as the entire military budget of of Russia for a year. So we need to we need to escape from this illusion that that they're out to get us because they're not out to get us. There is nothing aggressive either in the policy of China or of Russia. And the only the only aggression is with the US, UK, the NATO countries, which, you know, I look at the at the the history of the wars of the Russian Federation.

You have the tiny, tiny war in Georgia. You have the war in Syria, which they they didn't get involved in until four years after the terrorists had been there. And then finally at the last moment, they agreed to go in at the request of of Syria because ISIS and al Qaeda threatened to overwhelm the country. Very reluctant, somewhat limited involvement in Syria. And now you have the situation in Ukraine.

You compare that to our situation where we've we've fought multiple wars against Iraq. We fought in Somalia, we fought in Bosnia, we fought in Haiti, we fought in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Uganda, Syria. I probably missed half a dozen wars that that we fought. We fight everywhere. You can literally have a soldier who retires with 30 years active service in the US Army.

And he will retire and never have served a single day when the United States was not invading and occupying some country. So to compare that with the situation with with Russia and China, where has China had fought? Who have they invaded? They've had a couple of little border border disputes, but that's it. They don't invade people. We invade people. So we need to get away from this illusion. If we can ever break away from the illusion that they're out to get us, which is totally false, then we can start chopping back on our on our defense budget.

World tensions could reduce and we could get back to making cell phones or whatever we do for a living and and have a genuine economy that wasn't based on killing people in foreign countries.



Many military officials are speaking up

yinkeys:

I hope they don’t try to use drone bombs next
They’d probably go through Ecowas next

Another Western slave spotted.

danvon:
You go explain tire no evidence

If USA wants the coup leaders Out they would be Out, for now they are not yet interested Niger has nothing to give or take from them.

The idea of US bribing a leader is laughable and if it was true then the leader must be very foolish not to accept.

The leader is just very smart
200 million printed sheets of paper, 200 mln of money unsecured by goods?

and no one guarantees personal safety (the fate of Gaddafi. who paid huge bribes to the French government to everyone as an example) . .

BoldBrainz:


The US has a history of paying top dollars to terrorist cells, seperatists and rebel movements, etc. This isn't new.

US has a history of arming and sponsoring terrorists, separatists and rebels against their perceived enemies but that should not be confused with bribery, bribery implies the US is weak... The US arms and sponsors but they don't bribe.