Five Countries in Seven Years

This article has been edited by Anarchopedians, and to that extent represents Anarchopedia's philosophy. While it may at first seem less than subtle, what is printed elsewhere is the extreme You are welcomed to adjust your perception of Normality

AP ED

This article is about the latest part of the concerted effort by the United States to take over the world. 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 US invaded or started a coup where the USSR sent weapons or advice. 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.

Origin

The phrase was first used by General Wesley Clark in 2006, if not earlier, in speeches, and his book, A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor and Country

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.

The lists

The list, and those countries that are on the list to take out next, are inextricably linked to at least six other lists

1. The List of countries by proven oil reserves
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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. 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.

Next

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:

1. Venezuela
2. Nigeria
3. Ecuador (lacks pretext)
4. Ghana (just west of Nigeria)
5. Gabon (just south of Nigeria)
6. Kazakhstan (probably economically controlled)
7. Azerbaijan (economically controlled, as shown above)

But then, Ukraine was a surprise. So we cannot be sure.