Posted 11 years ago on Nov. 15, 2011, 4:49 p.m. EST by jjpatrick
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The top 0.01% richest weopons dealer need war to make a profit. Obama's been their top recepient over the years.
But does Wall Street care about the recent 'humanitarian' war in Libya, or the Middle East?
Well, in order for Wall Street to profit, the demand for the U.S. dollar has to stay high. The only way to do this is if countries in Africa stay poor and continue to be in debt to us. Likewise, no country that has a natural reserve such as oil can become self-sufficient. Hence why it serves our interest for the Middle East to stay continually in a state of war. This is why the U.S. funded Al Quada in the cold war, why we fought them supposedly in Iraq and Afghanistant (only to be found in Pakistan), and why we teamed up with them to attack a country who gave up their WMD's. This is why we supply weapons to both countries in times of war and why we assassinate leaders to trigger them.
If the East becomes too strong and they ally with the Middle East and trade with their own currency for trade and oil, the value of the U.S. dollar decreases and we're screwed especially if it's not connected to something of universal value like silver or gold. In other words, we need to occupy all oil reserves in the Middle East and contain them.
Thus why Wall street, the war industry, and their corporate owners and the President are closely linked and run the show.
There is a reason why we're spending nearly 1/3 of the U.S. budget (close to a trillion dollars now under Obama) for around 10 years to chase after Bin Laden and a few of his friends even after he has died, though it surprises me that we then ally with them to attack Libya.
So either we support the wars as U.S. has done throughout its short history or we connect the U.S. dollar to gold and silver so that the value of the U.S. dollar doesn't require wars and recessions in order to boost the economy.