₦airaland Forum

[size=14pt]....Mission Accomplished?[/size]

Of the 3,000 emails released from Hillary Clinton’s private email server in late December 2015, about a third were from her close confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the attorney who defended her husband in the Monica Lewinsky case. One of these emails,dated April 2, 2011, reads in part:

"...Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver . . . . This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA)..."

In a “source comment,” the original declassified email adds:

According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

1. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,
2. Increase French influence in North Africa,
Improve his internal political situation in France,
3. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,
4. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa

Conspicuously absent is any mention of humanitarian concerns. Thhe objectives are money, power and oil....

[size=14pt]
...Toppling the Global Financial Scheme[/size]

Qaddafi’s threatened attempt to establish an independent African currency was not taken lightly by Western interests. In 2011, Sarkozy reportedly called the Libyan leader a threat to the financial security of the world. How could this tiny country of six million people pose such a threat? First some background...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/exposing-the-libyan-agenda-a-closer-look-at-hillarys-emails/5514010

i believe this

You will never see missy89 and her Amerikan fan robots on a beautiful thread like this.

R.I.P Muammar Ghadaffi - Your sweet & glorious vengeance is underway.

Zoharariel:
You will never see missy89 and her Amerikan fan robots on a beautiful thread like this.

R.I.P Muammar Ghadaffi - Your sweet & glorious vengeance is underway.

Do you even understand what the thread is about?

Believe GlobalResearch at your own peril.

Missy89:
Do you even understand what the thread is about?

Monkey and what is the thread about? Fowl, you lack comprehension! transgendered.

Amoto94:
Believe GlobalResearch at your own peril.

The article is a classic way conspiracy websites and loons tweak information and misrepresent it. Vice news actually filed a law suit to get that same email and did a piece on it 2 months ago.

Turns out Sidney Blumenthal was just a source for the state department when he was pursing his business interest in Libya and the email is one of many emails he sent to Hilary. The email was actually talking about what might be motivating Sarkozy for wanting to get rid of Qaddafi.


https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011


The piece talks about how the timeline of the memo makes it hard to believe and it was probably treated with skepticism by clinton's staff

Missy89:
The article is a classic way conspiracy websites and loons tweak information and misrepresent it. Vice news actually filed a law suit to get that same email and did a piece on it 2 months ago.

Turns out Sidney Blumenthal was just a source for the state department when he was pursing his business interest in Libya and the email is one of many emails he sent to Hilary. The email was actually talking about what might be motivating Sarkozy for wanting to get rid of Qaddafi.


https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011


The piece talks about how the timeline of the memo makes it hard to believe and it was probably treated with skepticism by clinton's staff

Do you believe that Africa's independence from European colonialism is absolute?

Muafrika2:
Do you believe that Africa's independence from European colonialism is absolute?

No. Especially in the francophone countries. But countries like Nigeria can't blame colonialism anymore. The ruling class has been incapable of building a country.

They steal. All of them and Nigerians are delusional waiting for a saviour somewhere.

Muafrika2:
Do you believe that Africa's independence from European colonialism is absolute?

You shouldn't have asked her that question, since colonialism & imperialism (Amerika's quest for imperial dominance) are not in her dictionary.

Right from the days of Carter's administration, Amerika uses the red herring of “Islamic extremism” and terrorism, to justify any actions it deems necessary for the advancement of its own agenda.

In places like Afghanistan and Yemen, the enemy is “Al-Qaeda” which must be fought with Amerika's military might, while in Libya and Syria, the same “Al-Qaeda” is an ally fighting against the oppressive regimes of Gaddafi and Assad.

This duplicity, which is inherent in Missy89 & her fellow propaganda prophets in Nairaland, should come as no surprise since Amerika’s foreign policy is based on expanding her hegemony rather than promoting any ideals.

Zoharariel:
You shouldn't have asked her that question, since colonialism & imperialism (Amerika's quest for imperial dominance) are not in her dictionary.

Right from the days of Carter's administration, Amerika uses the red herring of “Islamic extremism” and terrorism, to justify any actions it deems necessary for the advancement of its own agenda.

In places like Afghanistan and Yemen, the enemy is “Al-Qaeda” which must be fought with Amerika's military might, while in Libya and Syria, the same “Al-Qaeda” is an ally fighting against the oppressive regimes of Gaddafi and Assad.

This duplicity, which is inherent in Missy89 & her fellow propaganda prophets in Nairaland, should come as no surprise since Amerika’s foreign policy is based on expanding her hegemony rather than promoting any ideals.

Take your pills and get some rest.

Have you licked putins azz today?

Zoharariel:
You shouldn't have asked her that question, since colonialism & imperialism (Amerika's quest for imperial dominance) are not in her dictionary.

Right from the days of Carter's administration, Amerika uses the red herring of “Islamic extremism” and terrorism, to justify any actions it deems necessary for the advancement of its own agenda.

In places like Afghanistan and Yemen, the enemy is “Al-Qaeda” which must be fought with Amerika's military might, while in Libya and Syria, the same “Al-Qaeda” is an ally fighting against the oppressive regimes of Gaddafi and Assad.

This duplicity, which is inherent in Missy89 & her fellow propaganda prophets in Nairaland, should come as no surprise since Amerika’s foreign policy is based on expanding her hegemony rather than promoting any ideals.

I concur America is the Godfather of all colonialism. And that what we call civilization, it's ideals, laws and culture are not by chance. There are think tanks that the designers of Western civilization have been using since time immemorial to create institutions, philosophy, and governments that will propagate their agenda.

That agenda is simple. Control, Power. It doesn't take a genius to note that the fastest way to lose a presidency (and peace) of any country in the world is to challenge the West.

Missy89:
No. Especially in the francophone countries. But countries like Nigeria can't blame colonialism anymore. The ruling class has been incapable of building a country.

They steal. All of them and Nigerians are delusional waiting for a saviour somewhere.

The British, like the Americans are more subtle. It doesn't mean that they do not engage in the same vices as France.

Have you noticed that "discoveries" and exploitation of African minerals are usually done by companies owned by shadowy individuals from their respective colonial master nations.

Muafrika2:
The British, like the Americans are more subtle. It doesn't mean that they do not engage in the same vices as France.

Have you noticed that "discoveries" and exploitation of African minerals are usually done by companies owned by shadowy individuals from their respective colonial master nations.

Right

I heard the were mind controlling abacha and babangida and controlled them to loot.


So tell me, how is britain and america exploiting nigeria minerals

I even doubt if those countries even buy Nigeria's crude anymore

Global Research
Please tell me more

Missy89:
The article is a classic way conspiracy websites and loons tweak information and misrepresent it. Vice news actually filed a law suit to get that same email and did a piece on it 2 months ago.

Turns out Sidney Blumenthal was just a source for the state department when he was pursing his business interest in Libya and the email is one of many emails he sent to Hilary. The email was actually talking about what might be motivating Sarkozy for wanting to get rid of Qaddafi.


https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-the-strange-email-sidney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011


The piece talks about how the timeline of the memo makes it hard to believe and it was probably treated with skepticism by clinton's staff

I have one question for you, dear Missy. What were the bases for the American led invasion of Libya?

Missy89:
Right

I heard the were mind controlling abacha and babangida and controlled them to loot.


So tell me, how is britain and america exploiting nigeria minerals

I even doubt if those countries even buy Nigeria's crude anymore

All African(and middle East) governments are puppet governments for one. The looting is just an African decease caused by a cocktail of facts like tribe, faulty economic, political and social systems, which were forcefully imposed upon us at the Berlin conference, more recently by the US & CO. limited more commonly called the United Nations.

Appleyard:
I have one question for you, dear Missy. What were the bases for the American led invasion of Libya?

A little history lesson will help.

Libya's intervention was France's idea, Us got in much later in march. How is that US led?

Maybe you should read the link for more perspective.

Muafrika2:
All African(and middle East) governments are puppet governments for one. The looting is just an African decease caused by a cocktail of facts like tribe, faulty economic, political and social systems, which were forcefully imposed upon us at the Berlin conference, more recently by the US & CO. limited more commonly called the United Nations.

If you say so.

Muafrika2:
All African(and middle East) governments are puppet governments for one.

Permit me to use Yemen as a case study.

Amerika's interest in Yemen is certainly not rooted in altruism or a desire to promote democratic ideals.

On the contrary, it is the application of a long-standing geopolitical strategy to control international trade through the Mandab Strait and Suez Canal, access to African raw materials, and most specifically, block the expansion of Chinese economic influence in both the Middle East and Africa.

For these reasons, Amerika has a keen interest in both Yemen and Somalia, desperate to maintain chaos in those countries, just like they're using Boko Haram including fomenting of ethnic, tribal, and other sectarian conflicts to destabilize Nigeria, so as to prevent stable, nationalist leaders from emerging.

In so doing, Amerika once again shows itself to be an imperialist aggressor, interested only in maintaining and expanding the empire.

In Yemen, we’ve seen this strategy employed vis-à-vis the Huthi rebellion, the propagandistic use of tribal groups as proxies of Saudi Arabia, Iran, or whomever Amerika wants to demonize, and countless other examples of these sorts of divisive tactics.

In this way, the imperialists are able to keep Yemen fragmented, using it as a pawn on the geopolitical chessboard.

BTW - Stop arguing or debating with Missy89, else she will colonize your brain with her subtle lies & propaganda.

Zoharariel:
Permit me to use Yemen as a case study.

Amerika's interest in Yemen is certainly not rooted in altruism or a desire to promote democratic ideals.

On the contrary, it is the application of a long-standing geopolitical strategy to control international trade through the Mandab Strait and Suez Canal, access to African raw materials, and most specifically, block the expansion of Chinese economic influence in both the Middle East and Africa.

For these reasons, Amerika has a keen interest in both Yemen and Somalia, desperate to maintain chaos in those countries, just like they're using Boko Haram including fomenting of ethnic, tribal, and other sectarian conflicts to destabilize Nigeria, so as to prevent stable, nationalist leaders from emerging.

In so doing, Amerika once again shows itself to be an imperialist aggressor, interested only in maintaining and expanding the empire.

In Yemen, we’ve seen this strategy employed vis-à-vis the Huthi rebellion, the propagandistic use of tribal groups as proxies of Saudi Arabia, Iran, or whomever Amerika wants to demonize, and countless other examples of these sorts of divisive tactics.

In this way, the imperialists are able to keep Yemen fragmented, using it as a pawn on the geopolitical chessboard.

BTW - Stop arguing or debating with Missy89, else she will colonize your brain with her subtle lies & propaganda.

Lol @ keep yemen fragmented.

Was Yemen like switzerland before the houti rebellion? Besides, this is another huge oversimplification of the issue.

I am enjoying my weekend games,

Will chip in later

Missy89:
A little history lesson will help.

Libya's intervention was France's idea, Us got in much later in march. How is that US led?

Maybe you should read the link for more perspective.

I read you! It is true that France had a criminal motive (for obvious reasons as refered to by the article) to see a regime change in Libya, but the Libya's intervention was never a French idea at the first place!
Toppling Gaddafi was planned right after 9/11, or perhaps even before.
Just as American reporter Gareth Porter aptly reported in 2008:
Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith’s published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith’s account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country’s top military leaders.
Feith’s book,War and Decision, now released, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on ''taking down Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network,'' but on the aim of establishing “new regimes” in a series of states… of which Libya was chief. The testimony of Gen. Wesley Clark further corroborated this facts.
The invasion of Libya was never of French origin, but a United States strategic policy ab initio.

Again, you tried to make it look like France led the rest players in the one-sided encounter, and that the US only join the party in march; but that is not totally the case. From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition consisted of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and the US, which later expanded to nineteen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. Which already had its fleet carrier ''the Enterprise'' in place way before the hostilities commenced on march 19th. The March 23 NATO take over was spearheaded by the US, without whom NATO is a toothless bulldog (we all know that the US runs NATO, and its the official commander.) The major players all started bombings and major operations same day. So, how did the US came in late?

But lets forget about that.

Back to the question: what were the bases of the US involvement?

Gaddafi was not removed becuase of Libya's Oil nor her Gold.

Gaddafi was feared and respected all over North Africa to some parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Gaddafi controled the influence of the West through out the Mediterranean.

Noticed how refugee crisis and terrorism increased on the Mediterranean after Gaddafi's fall.

Gaddafi knows the Western countries evils plans, that why he always attack them at every UN meeting.

Unlike Mugabe, Gaddafi got the money and knowledge to withstand any Western sanctions.

And the only way to remove him was through indirect insurrection.

Appleyard:
I read you! It is true that France had a criminal motive (for obvious reasons as refered to by the article) to see a regime change in Libya, but the Libya's intervention was never a French idea at the first place!
Toppling Gaddafi was planned right after 9/11, or perhaps even before.
Just as American reporter Gareth Porter aptly reported in 2008:
Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith’s published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith’s account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country’s top military leaders.
Feith’s book,War and Decision, now released, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on ''taking down Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network,'' but on the aim of establishing “new regimes” in a series of states… of which Libya was chief. The testimony of Gen. Wesley Clark further corroborated this facts.
The invasion of Libya was never of French origin, but a United States strategic policy ab initio.

Again, you tried to make it look like France led the rest players in the one-sided encounter, and that the US only join the party in march; but that is not totally the case. From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition consisted of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and the US, which later expanded to nineteen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. Which already had its fleet carrier ''the Enterprise'' in place way before the hostilities commenced on march 19th. The March 23 NATO take over was spearheaded by the US, without whom NATO is a toothless bulldog (we all know that the US runs NATO, and its the official commander.) The major players all started bombings and major operations same day. So, how did the US came in late?

But lets forget about that.

Back to the question: what were the bases of the US involvement?

You have actually answered your question.

Rumsfeld/Bush policy makers weren't making policy anymore when Obama was president so the idea that the Libya invasion was pre planned after 911 doesn't make sense since (not saying the book is false) it was 2 different administrations. quoting a book about the foreign policy objective of a president and tying it to another one 10 years later is the highest level of crankery

France was the country calling for Qaddafi to go since February, It was a French initiative. Who proposed a no fly zone? France and Britain.US joined because France was an ally and a NATO member (and to enforce the no fly zone). It is like asking me why New Zealand and Australia fought desert storm or why Greece was intervening in Libya.

Nicolas Sarkozy was taking credit for the invasion. ( Because the US have the largest forces in NATO doesnt mean other countries dont have their agenda or make their own geopolitical moves. Yugoslavia was another example) Even Obama was on record saying that the Europeans were freeloading

Even the idea of "gold dinar" and "oil" doesn't make so much sense. Libya was already part of the global oil market and European oil companies have huge investments there and they lost money after the invasion.


For more prespective

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-africa-12672640

Fews excerpts

The UK and France are drafting a UN resolution for an air exclusion zone, which is due to be debated by Nato defence ministers on Thursday

Mr Hague also said the move needed the legal backing of a UN resolution - an element also required by the US and Nato.

The US said on Monday it was still considering a possible military response to the situation in Libya, along with its allies.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said arming rebel groups was "one of the range of options that is being considered", but stressed that Washington was still evaluating those groups opposed to Col Gaddafi.

Humanitarian concerns
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said the Pentagon had prepared a number of military options for President Obama.
"I think at this point there is a sense that any action should be the result of an international sanction before anything is done," he added.

Read the bolded lines.

Britain/France were ready (Even the Arabs including Palestinians wanted him gone at this point). US was still considering options and wanted a UN mandate plus Arab league's backing. So how is it US led when Obama was sitting on the fence at the beginning? See why your rant about the book is irrelevant here?

OBAGADAFFI:
Gaddafi was not removed becuase of Libya's Oil nor her. Gold.

Gaddafi was feared and respected all over North Africa to some parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Gaddafi control the influence of the West through out the Mediterranean.

Noticed how refugee crisis and terrorism increased on the Mediterranean after Gaddafi's fall.

Gaddafi knows the Western countries evils plans, that why he always attack them at every UN meeting.

Unlike Mugabe, Gaddafi got the money and knowledge to withstand any Western sanctions.

And the only way to remove him was through indirect insurrection.

I knew his goose was cooked the moment he appeared at the UN General Assembly as the chair of the African Union, tore the UN Charter as he made his speech and threw it over his head.

You are right. He was a powerful man in North and West Africa and influenced the entire continent.

Muafrika2:
I knew his goose was cooked the moment he appeared at the UN General Assembly as the chair of the African Union, tore the UN Charter as he made his speech and threw it over his head.

You are right. He was a powerful man in North and West Africa and influenced the entire continent.

Remember when he was planing the unitary African government.

The West became jittery, they started manipulating Nigeria, SA, Ghane and co against Gaddafi.

The simply feared Gaddafi control over Africa.
But Libya was one of the best country to live in Africa.

OBAGADAFFI:
Remember when he was planing the unitary African government.

The West became jittery, they started manipulating Nigeria, SA, Ghane and co against Gaddafi.

The simply feared Gaddafi control over Africa.
But Libya was one of the best country to live in Africa.

He understood the hold of the West on Africa and had a formula that would have been very effective in establishing Africa's independence.

Another thing that he succeeded in was the revival of Africa's ancient monarchs and councils of elders. That there is the secret of African strength.

I understand that during the bombardment of Libya, the allied powers specifically attacked the unique infrastructure that had established Libya as a powerhouse - the artificial river that supplied households and irrigation systems with underground waters, etc. What did a no fly zone have to do with the countries water supply?

"... In Norway, for example, when it comes to something like the Libyan war … [political leaders] sent MSM messages to the other people in parliament; it was never a discussion in parliament, it was an MSM saying “Let’s bomb because someone called from America.” We [Norway] bombed 588 bombs over roads, and water, and cities in Libya at that time. And we had a large documentary in Norway, after that, where the fighters, the pilots that flew over Libya and dropped these bombs, they actually said in the documentary that “We were sent up and we weren’t even told what to bomb—just bomb something that looks valuable."http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/249242/how-west-destroyed-libya-raymond-ibrahim

Missy89:
Rumsfeld/Bush policy makers weren't making policy anymore when Obama was president so the idea that the Libya invasion was pre planned after 911 doesn't make sense since (not saying the book is false) it was 2 different administrations. quoting a book about the foreign policy objective of a president and tying it to another one 10 years later is the highest level of crankery

Chai! I just can't believe YOU are the one actually typing this babel! Are you mistaken the intergrity of US administrative and policy objectivity for those of Nigeria where one successive government comes in and simply discontinue with and blatantly overhaul every policy and progam of the previous administration? How on earth could you say this, when you know that policies of one government, especially when they are strategic, overlaps successive goverments? There are so many policies of Bush that were consolidated on and continued by the Obama administration. I don't even need to sight examples. The world wide web is our friend; do your bit and feed your eyes with facts. This much was even succintly captured by Charlie Savage in his book ''Power Wars,'' and even corroborated by the NYT. In fact, Obama was making his peace with Bush's long war policy as early as Santa Cruz Day, 2009, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab nearly blew up a plane over Detroit with a bomb in his underwear.
The underwear bombing incident was both a political and policy jolt up for Obama. The tug and pull between security and reform that existed in the first year of his presidency effectively ended, and a kind of retrenchment began.
Opining that since Bush policy makers were no longer making policies as at when Obama came into power, and thus have nothing to do with Libya or such, is a very childish argument. If policy formulations are to be based on your premise, then there would be no need for developing and undertaking strategic objectives.
It was a Pentagon's objective to take out 7 states (covertly and overtly,) and under Bush we saw the achievements of part of this objectives - Iraq and co, and Obama's administration simply followed up on the rest, taken on Libya and now Syria. Yet, someone is saying it doesn't make sense, when the same Rumsfield policy attested to by Wesley Clark is acting its script, huh? I guess i will need to visit the Synagogue Church of All Nations to stand in gap for you guys for a mighty deliverance from the spirit of denial. T. B Joshua must hear this.

France was the country calling for Qaddafi to go since February, It was a French initiative. Who proposed a no fly zone? France and Britain.US joined because France was an ally and a NATO member (and to enforce the no fly zone)

France did no sh*t! US forces were already positioned off the coast of Libya, way before Cameron, reechoed by Sarkozy, proposed their no-fly zone. And saying that the US got in as an ally simply to enforce a no-fly zone, is again, a deservice to US hospitality of spreading ''democrazy'' through color coded revolution that was the hall mark of the Libyan uprising, which initially consisted of over 1000 Al Qaeda activists. We all know how the US embassy in Libya was used as a CIA forward base for the revolution. The whole thing was US game from day 1.

Even the idea of "gold dinar" and "oil" doesn't make so much sense.

For more prespective.

See why your rant about the book is irrelevant here?

Obama was not sitting on any nonesense fence! They knew what they were doing. The same Obama disregarded a Congress vote down on the authorization of war against Libya, and proceeded with it. And Its all about oil, gold and dinar..and it makes alot of sense!
The motivation to overthrow Gaddafi was economic. Like in
August of 2000, Saddam Hussein announced he was going to sell Iraq's oil for euros. In 2003, the first thing invading U.S. troops did was take over the Ministry of Oil and switch back to dollars. Even an article in the Economist mentioned this fact, but curiously buried it deep within a large article, and phrased it in a way designed to inoculate readers against its significance.
Gaddafi was about to introduce a gold dinar.
A tiny but powerful group of political and financial elite enjoy the exclusive privilege of creating dollars out of nothing and forcing the entire world to use them as money. They do this by requiring the use of dollars to buy natural resources and in general to participate in the global economy. The defense of this privilege explains much U.S. government foreign policy and belligerence. This explains not only why Iran is presented as a threat, but why Russia and China are the new big concerns.
The role of the dollar as the world reserve currency is coming to an end, but the powers that be aren't letting it happen without a fight.

These are facts, and not what you termed rants and crankery! God is calling you, Missy89. Repent now before its too late! ;-)

Please you guys shouldn't stop. I learn a lot from you knowledge.

Zoharariel:
Permit me to use Yemen as a case study.

Amerika's interest in Yemen is certainly not rooted in altruism or a desire to promote democratic ideals.

On the contrary, it is the application of a long-standing geopolitical strategy to control international trade through the Mandab Strait and Suez Canal, access to African raw materials, and most specifically, block the expansion of Chinese economic influence in both the Middle East and Africa.

For these reasons, Amerika has a keen interest in both Yemen and Somalia, desperate to maintain chaos in those countries, just like they're using Boko Haram including fomenting of ethnic, tribal, and other sectarian conflicts to destabilize Nigeria, so as to prevent stable, nationalist leaders from emerging.

In so doing, Amerika once again shows itself to be an imperialist aggressor, interested only in maintaining and expanding the empire.

In Yemen, we’ve seen this strategy employed vis-à-vis the Huthi rebellion, the propagandistic use of tribal groups as proxies of Saudi Arabia, Iran, or whomever Amerika wants to demonize, and countless other examples of these sorts of divisive tactics.

In this way, the imperialists are able to keep Yemen fragmented, using it as a pawn on the geopolitical chessboard.

BTW - Stop arguing or debating with Missy89, else she will colonize your brain with her subtle lies & propaganda.

Insightful. US hegemony knows no boundary.

Appleyard:
Obama was not sitting on any nonesense fence! They knew what they were doing. The same Obama disregarded a Congress vote down on the authorization of war against Libya, and proceeded with it. And Its all about oil, gold and dinar..and it makes alot of sense!
The motivation to overthrow Gaddafi was economic. Like in

August of 2000, Saddam Hussein announced he was going to sell Iraq's oil for euros. In 2003, the first thing invading U.S. troops did was take over the Ministry of Oil and switch back to dollars. Even an article in the Economist mentioned this fact, but curiously buried it deep within a large article, and phrased it in a way designed to inoculate readers against its significance.
Gaddafi was about to introduce a gold dinar.

A tiny but powerful group of political and financial elite enjoy the exclusive privilege of creating dollars out of nothing and forcing the entire world to use them as money. They do this by requiring the use of dollars to buy natural resources and in general to participate in the global economy. The defense of this privilege explains much U.S. government foreign policy and belligerence. This explains not only why Iran is presented as a threat, but why Russia and China are the new big concerns.
The role of the dollar as the world reserve currency is coming to an end, but the powers that be aren't letting it happen without a fight.

These are facts, and not what you termed rants and crankery! God is calling you, Missy89. Repent now before its too late! ;-)

If the internet is your evidence for Obama's continuation for Bush wars then I digress

The Saddam dollar and Euro thing just shows how you lack basic understanding of economics and world affairs even thou you are pretending to be informed

When Saddam switched payments to Euros, He wasn't even receiving any Euros. Iraq only have oil coupons and received food for her oil sales at that point under the Oil for food program and Iraq's oil money was remitted in PNB Paribas NY branch and the UN had to approve any withdrawal for food. It was more of a business and political move since Euro had a higher interest rate at the time.

Even if the euro were to maintain its parity with the dollar, this would not cause the dollar to cease to be the international reserve currency. A two international reserve currency system is more unstable than one dominated by a single currency. Markets will move toward stability—and a currency with a historical track record and at the time of Saddam's switch, Euro was just bailed out few weeks before so there was no reason for America to worry about the dollar stability against the Euro

I am not saying the Iraq war was a good thing but to suggest it was based on Euro and Dollars, That is just the tales cranks tell themselves online. ( to be fair thou, i used to believe it too)

By the way,

How is the US forcing other countries to spend the dollar? Russia still receive dollars for her gas sales and increased her portfolio of US securities this year already. Who is forcing Putin? China have around a trillion of US debt. Who forced china? Iran's oil sales that was just received after sanctions was relieved was paid in dollars. Iran has been receiving these payments in dollars. DID NOT ASK for pesos or yuan

If the end of the dollar is near, what currency do you think will be the global currency? The last time i check none of the other currency in the IMF SDR is as strong as the dollar. Gold?

And when you say the Dollar is created out of nothing. Tell me which currency is created out of something i need to know. EVERY country use the fractional reserve system which means money is created by banks when there is a deposit.