Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Why Libya?

"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business," says the Ledeen Doctrine, quoted by Steve Sailer — Obama's Jonah Goldberg War.

Grenada in '83, Iraq in '91 and '03 and Libya in '11 averages out to "[e]very ten years or so." I guess Panama in '89 was a bonus. And we can't really count Afghanistan not only because it may have been a just war but because we haven't quite managed to "throw it against the wall."

I can think of one "small crappy little country" in the Middle East over which Messrs. Ledeen and Goldberg (and Wolfowitz, Podhoretz, and Kristol) would likely renounce their American citizenship were the United States ever to "throw it against the wall."

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

4 Comments:

Blogger Enbrethiliel said...

+JMJ+

Interestingly, the "every ten years or so" average stands even if we count all the way back to the Philippines in 1898!

Of course, I'm assuming that the "small crappy little country" description is rhetorical and ironic.

1:11 AM  
Blogger The Western Confucian said...

That year marks the death of the Old Republic.

As Michael Lind says of "libertarian isolationists" quoted on this blog's sidebar, "the U.S. changed from a decentralized republic into a militarized, authoritarian empire in the late 19th century, when the Spanish-American War made the U.S. a colonial power and trusts and cartels took over the economy."

Fellow Buffalonian President Grover S. Cleveland was the last anti-imperialist to sit in the White House, opposing, for example, the annexation of Hawai'i.

Of course, the "small crappy little country" tag is indeed "rhetorical and ironic." Presdent McKinley, in taking up "the whote man's burden," said he wanted to make Christians our of our "little brown brothers" in the Philippines, even if they'd been Catholic for about four centuries already.

4:17 AM  
Blogger Dragon000slayer said...

Rothschilds/U.S. fund revolutions in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Tunisia, etc to kill Islamic banks:

“Islamic banks have been eating into the profits of conventional banks in the Middle East because: they don’t charge interest (Shariah Law), they are growing very rapidly, and (in these catastrophic economic times) they are more stable than western banks.”

“The MENA (Middle East North Africa) revolutions are from the same playbook as the nonviolent “color revolutions.”

The playbook is From Dictatorship To Democracy by Gene Sharp of the Albert Einstein Institute (funded partially by George Soros).

These revolutions have been successful in Serbia [especially the Bulldozer Revolution (2000)], in Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004), in Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution and in Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution (2005).

Iran’s Green Revolution (2009) was unsuccessful.”

“Facebook and Twitter were the primary means of organizing the revolution in Egypt…”

“The globalist banksters want Muslims to borrow from their (the globalist’s) banks and pay interest at rates their central banks decide: they do not want them to borrow from Islamic banks and not pay any interest.

The globalist banking cartel want Muslims to trade their present political oppression at the hands of brutal dictators for a future of economic serfdom under the feudal Lord Rothschild.”

http://www.puppet99.com/?p=218

11:43 PM  
Blogger Dragon000slayer said...

“With extremely little government input, the economies of nearly all countries’ in the world are strictly controlled by private central bankers (and their tool, the International Monetary Fund) ultimately led by the Rothschild’s cartel.

Central bankers in the MENA region complain about less “independence” from the wishes of those dictators and governments.

Some countries without central banks (privately owned operating autonomous of the government) have names like Central Bank of Iran and Central Bank of Libya and appear on lists of central banks, but they are state owned or entirely state controlled.

Countries without privately-owned (or controlled) central banks are: Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and Cuba.

Iraq did not have a central bank until (after the U.S. invasion in) 2004, Afghanistan did not have a central bank until (after the U.S. invasion in) 2002 and Yugoslavia did not have a central bank independent of government control.

Sudan’s central bank may be privately owned but it is totally run by the government which embraced Islamic banking decades ago (According to an IMF study , Sudan’s score for the political autonomy of its bank is zero out of eight).

Countries labeled as “rogue states” by the U.S. in the late 1990s were Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Afganistan, Yugoslavia and Sudan.”

TABLE 2: IS THERE A CORRELATION BETWEEN THE LACK OF CONTROL OF A NATION’S ECONOMY BY INTERNATIONAL ELITES AND U.S. AGGRESSION — ECONOMIC, POLITICAL OR MILITARY?

No private Central Bank (1990s):

Iraq|Iran|Afghanistan|Cuba|North Korea|Syria|Yugoslavia|Libya|Sudan

“Rogue States” (1990s):

Iraq|Iran|Afghanistan|Cuba|North Korea|Syria|Yugoslavia|Libya|Sudan

http://www.puppet99.com/?p=218

11:44 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Omnes Sancti et Sanctæ Coreæ, orate pro nobis.