- Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
This article is about the latest part of the concerted effort by the United States to take over the world. It has, since at least the 20th Century, been on the list of things to achieve in the world, but it was not until the fall of the USSR that it became conceivable by the general public. The myth of the Cold War posed the USSR as an implacable enemy that could retaliate with nuclear weapons at any time, when in fact they were lying low, fearing that the US would unilaterally attack them with nukes. The USSR followed a program of helping countries or rebel groups that wanted to be communist, and would sometimes (Granada was an example of when they did not) give them weapons and intelligence assistance and hope that they achieved their objectives. The US, on the other hand, invaded 13 countries, two of them attacked twice, and one of them attacked three times (16 invasions+attacks all told). The USSR assisted in quite a few coups, but nowhere near the 14 coups that the US was involved in. The US was, in fact, and is increasingly, the very Evil Empire that they warned us of.
Seven countries in five years means, for the purposes of this article, a list of the countries that the United States has attacked with a view to destroying their sovereignty, or helped take over, since 2001.
The origin of the phrase is somewhat different, but in most ways the same. The original list was Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. There is another list that is 58% congruent with that list, 58% congruent with the countries that the US did in fact invade, and 100% congruent with countries that the US opposes with the stated threat of military force: the only seven countries that in the year 2000 did not have a Rothschild-owned Central Bank. They were Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. As of 2011, only Cuba, North Korea and Iran do not have a Rothschild-owned Central Bank. 
In his book, the general recalls two visits to the Pentagon, the first before September 25, 2001. A “senior general” told him, “We’re going to attack Iraq. The decision has basically been made.”
Six weeks later, very close to Britain's Guy Fawkes Day on November 5, Clark returned to Washington to see the same general and inquired whether the plan to strike Iraq was still under consideration. The general’s response was a surprise to Clark:
“‘Oh, it’s worse than that,’ he said, holding up a memo on his desk. ‘Here’s the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.’ And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.”
Clark's testimony is very slightly fractured at this point. The other countries are not named in the book, but later he does name them: Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. Why the wait?
Well, the whole vision, both of the US in wanting to take over the world, and of observers, knowing that this is the US' plan, is not inconvenienced in the slightest by such a discrepancy. Nor is it the nature of world planners to adhere unalteringly to untenable plots in the face of changing world events. So, obviously, Iran did not work out. It is no longer on the short-term list. Nigeria is. Lebanon proved easy to "take out" by attacking its infrastructure. It was not the right combination of necessary and expedient, to change its government.
The great likelihood is that Clark knew this, and could only be sure of the three he named first. He knew that the US wanted to attack Iraq and Syria very much, that they were feasible plans, and that the parties involved were very keen on accomplishing this. The rest were probably the original seven in any case, but his news would have been much less effective had he missed three instead of just one.
These invasions do not exist in a vacuum. They are reliant on a sophisticated campaign of propaganda aimed at the victim state. Libya had its Lockerbie, Iraq its WMDs, Afghanistan its harboring of Osama bin Laden. Nigeria now has its Boko Haram. There is much political preparation that always precedes invasion. There must be a plausible excuse for the US to risk the disfavor of the world, a pretext.
Seven government and countries, all of which have already been the targets of extra-diplomatic actions and military US action in past years (see List of Military Interventions of the United States), were overtly targeted for invasion and overthrow by the Bush administration in late 2000. The countries were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. This objective has been achieved in Somalia and South Sudan. In three other countries, Iraq, Syria and Libya, resistance to foreign occupation will continue for the foreseeable future. But this is all to the good, for the US has moved on from wanting to control the governments of countries, and for them to remain stable; all that matters is control of the countries' riches, and instability makes them weaker relative to the US, and thus less of a threat. The important objectives have already been achieved; all of them have had Central Banks installed. In Lebanon, it is expected that Israel will continue its routine of bombing infrastructure to keep the country poor and defenseless, every few years; because of its vulnerability, it is unlikely that taking over Lebanon was ever more than a whim. Iran has so far thankfully proven too large a bite to chew properly.
It is clear that we cannot rely on intelligence such as this, alone. The Nuland-Pyatt phone call, the coup in Paraguay;, and the right-wing takeover of Venezuela prove that illegal military action and subversion of the democratic process will be instigated by the United States not only in the listed countries, but anywhere it becomes more convenient or desirable.
General Wesley Clark, not the staunchest ally of human rights himself (authorizing the use of depleted uranium rounds and attacks on civilians in Yugoslavia, for example), was nonetheless moved for whatever reason to deplore this policy publicly. However, it was six years before he did so, in an interview with Democracy Now!, a conference at the Commonwealth Club of California, and elsewhere.
The lists Edit
The list, and those countries that are on the list to take out next, are inextricably linked to at least six other lists
- The List of countries by proven oil reserves
- Much less important, because it is only really concerned with existing oil extraction infrastructure rather than the oil itself, is the List of countries by oil production
- The countries that provide the CIA with drug money (usually heroin) such as Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico, etc, are an important consideration for the US and those attempting to stop them
- The countries that are less well controlled than they might be, or that have been restored to a democratic or popular government, might be taken over if they were only controlled with Economic Hitmen, or taken over a second time. An example of an economically controlled country is Azerbaijan. to its oil reserves were basically stolen from the country by corrupt politicians and sold to unofficial US interests. The official US administration was warned by a buyer-turned-whistleblower, that the unscrupulous deal was taking place; instead of jailing the perpetrators, the US jailed the whistle-blower
- The countries on the penultimate list, with rare minerals and Conflict Resources like the Coltan and Cassiterite found in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (targeted for a coup in 1960 by the CIA).
The final list is an extrapolation from two things. One, the US has pursued its economic interests exclusively throughout its history. It began with Gunboat diplomacy (WP), sealed off the Western hemisphere with the Monroe Doctrine (WP), and then immediately moved to acquiring the wealth of the other countries in it with the Spanish-American War (WP), Banana Wars (WP) and Operation Condor (WP). Asia and the Middle East followed, and after the Cold War, the Soviet satellites. These continue, and Africa is added. This acquisition of power is relentless, at least one country a year, and remorseless, by any means available. Ethics and morals are a foreign consideration to it, that are only factored in as risks when assessing its opposition. What will those who might foment revolution or military opposition think of this action, and can their knowledge be avoided or ameliorated, is the question, not, whether or not such an action is evil. The second is, that the US posed the USSR as a threat, but once the USSR was dissolved, a new threat was discovered. There was no peace dividend. It stands to reason that there would be no stopping after obtaining mineral domination, just as the presence of AFRICOM (WP) has made it abundantly clear that there is to be no stopping after Oil domination.
It seems likely that the US will attempt to cement its control over the world, that it will attack countries that it finds the most threat to its world domination over dwindling world resources, once it has achieved it. The considerations involved are unknown. We can suppose that Communism and Socialism would loom rather large in their estimations.
Spying and attempted spying on allies and on US citizens, as well as the aforementioned ruthlessness, indicates that opposition and dissent will continue to be a target, and when other forms of opposition are destroyed, that there will be more resources available to crush them. There are only three options available to us.
The normal one, of using the tools of democracy, can only hope to slow the process down. It is no good asking the despot nicely, especially when they are so adept at lying; they will simply tell you they will change and change nothing.
Revolution is impossible. Even less likely than change through democracy. Revolutions historically have required a multitude of crucial factors, none of which exist or are likely to. Most effective is a populace which is armed to the teeth following a major war. This is true of the Russian Civil War (WWI) and the Chinese revolution (WWII). Difficult terrain used to make fighting easier, such as with the Cuban revolution and Viet Nam's fight against the French, but by the time they were fighting the Americans, helicopters eliminated this advantage, and the Viet Cong could only mount a political and propaganda victory, by making a mad rush a few hundred miles, from the Cambodian border to Saigon, which much dismayed an American public not familiar with the geography.
The one strategy that holds the most hope of, eventually, succeeding is economic cooperation. Sure the European Union (WP) is evil, and only serves to enrich the rich at the expense of the poor, but economic cooperation transformed its rulers from weak countries in danger of being swallowed up by the US, into the largest economy in the world. More importantly, and an example to follow rather than one to pick a silver lining from, is the obvious fact that cooperation is mathematically superior to competition. More efficient and more amenable and offering the peace and harmony that all living beings aspire to or once aspired to before they became jaded and bitter. Although it is only unequivocally more powerful than the current system once it approaches half of the resources of the world, it can begin at any scale, and is flexible and modular. It benefits not only from economies of scale but economies of resources unknown to competitive capitalism; twenty percent of the entire US economy is in Sales (broadly construed), and in cooperative economic partnerships, who are not interested in inducing their customers to buy things they do not want, this can be replaced. Replaced with a replication of the constructive occupations, or this workforce can be directed to new tasks and objectives.
Countries that stand out as valuable for oil and that are not currently under US control, and that pose no threat to the US militarily are:
- Ecuador (lacks pretext)
- Ghana (just west of Nigeria)
- Gabon (just south of Nigeria)
- Kazakhstan (probably economically controlled)
- Azerbaijan (economically controlled, as shown above)
But then, Ukraine was a surprise. So we cannot be sure.
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Only 3 countries left w/o ROTHSCHILD Central Bank!
- ↑ http://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/ interviews,
- ↑ A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor and Country, Wesley K. Clark, Palgrave Macmillan
- ↑ The memorandum states that the United States should "[c]apitalize on our strong suit, which is not finding a few hundred terrorists in caves in Afghanistan, but in the vastness of our military and humanitarian resources, which can strengthen the opposition forces in terrorist-supporting states." Pentagon Targeted Iran for Regime Change after 9/11", Inter Press Service, May 5, 2008. Undersecretary Feith and Gen. Wesley Clark confirmed that Iran is on this list
- ↑ Oil, Azerbaijan and the Strange Case of Rick Bourke, Democracy Now!
- ↑ [http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/occupational-employment-projections-to-2022.htm