The US Not the Strongest Military in the World, Dollar will Vanish (Finance&Liberty Interview)

I am not in the military, nor am I up-to-date with which countries have all the latest & greatest weapons (and ability to militarily overpower other nations under varying circumstances). But I just heard a bunch of major claims in an interview I want to share with ATS to see try to learn more and start this discussion.

Some of these claims (there are others that ATS members may find more interesting but there are so many in this interview I am only covering a few):

The US lost the battleground/mission in Syria because we are not the greatest military, not even close to the greatest military

Russia's Sunburn (link) & Onix (link)anti ship cruise missiles put the US missiles to shame

BOTH Russia & China have EMP weapons an entire generation ahead of the US EMP weapons; they have tested these weapons with great success 2 times now

Countries all over the world are dumping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Treasury notes (every month or couple of months), and the US is using the US Exchange Stabilization Fund (US Treasury link) as a slush fund to rebuy all of these bonds being dumped on the market to prevent sudden damages to US economy

Petrodollar is essentially already dead except to some countries in the Middle East who rely on US protection, but they too will soon stop using USD, if they haven't already

Wall Street gets much of its funding from Narco money/money laundering operations


Okay... as I said, I could really keep going and I actually still have 20 minutes left to finish.

Now, what does ATS think about all this?

I agree, we have some nasty stuff coming down the pike in the next 2 years or so - I honestly don't see non-military or non-economic events waiting more than 2 years from now, based on the current global and USgeopolitical climate, as well as the US economy currently cooling off (NOT the stock market performance, I'm talking about legitimate production and growth).

But these are extremely major claims.

I've heard Jim Willie before, and think he is intelligent, major claims require something to back them up with. Is this legit, or nonsensical ramblings of an American ex-patriot who left for Costa Rica and is running out of hobbies?

I know I wrote that as very black or white, all or nothing. That's just my writing style - truly I feel his analysis is in a gray area but certainly not ALL not true, and also not ALL true. What says my friends?



(oh yeah, the interview (it is long))

edit on 16-8-2017 by FamCore because: Bulleted list didnt work

extra DIV

a reply to: FamCore

Whoah.. whoah.. whoah.

Okay, I'm going to listen to this and try to look up a few things... this one got the wheels spinning in my head

a reply to: FamCore

There is no foreign military nor group which can threaten us, despite the non-stop fear mongering by the media.

We have enough nukes to destroy the world 30 times over.

Our downfall will come from within, via an economic collapse.

Or a conflict between the people and the State as they try to deprive us of more liberties.

And you know what the solution is? Why more money of course. Lots and lots of money.

I kind of hope that the petrodollar is dying a fast death. I wonder what their next trick will be when they can't create digital money out of thin air anymore and distribute the inflation around the world through the petrodollar?

Thanks Obama.

Here's one from 4 years ago.

I would prefer to say "NATO" in relation to Syria - and you cannot say who won or lost before it's even over or without determining exactly what the real objectives of the military conflict were to begin with. If the goal was merely to destabilize the nation and shatter their society, than it's working.

The anti-ship cruise missiles are only useful in extremely limited situations, and are becoming less and less relevant as anti-missile technology rapidly improves and as stealth technology is increasingly applied to the naval environment. They are decent weapons but this claim about them being all-powerful decisive weapons is exaggerated and out of context. Tomorrows battlefield is a completely different place than it was 10 years ago when these weapons came onto the scene.

EMP weapons can be effective but mainly against civilians, as more and more military hardware is being shielded from it. Also you have to understand that a powerful EMP weapon can do damage to everyone at once, and it would also justify the use of WMD in response. *(an EMP bomb is a WMD and it would be an atrocity to use it on civilian centers)

I'm not sure I understand the problem with the Treasury paying back people who purchased bonds. Am I misunderstanding the issue here? Please elaborate because I don't really know what you're referring to in relation to 'dumping bonds'. From what I understand a bond is a security instrument that is created, someone purchases it, than at a specific date they are repaid with interest. If they are 'dumped early' than they lose out on the anticipated long term value and face a penalty. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

About the Petrodollar it doesn't make much sense. Either it's dead or people still use it. If major groups use it than it's not quite dead yet.

I haven't seen any evidence about Wall Street's connections to Narco. It's plausible but I really don't know the details to any of that.

I can't watch the video right now sorry.

My assessment = these are sensationalist claims being made for a reason.
Are they selling Gold or other survivalist type gear?
Usually the doomsayers are also profiteers and in order to pay their bills they gotta keep crying wolf because their merchandise sells really good to people who are terrified about impending societal collapse.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
And you know what the solution is? Why more money of course. Lots and lots of money.

I kind of hope that the petrodollar is dying a fast death. I wonder what their next trick will be when they can't create digital money out of thin air anymore and distribute the inflation around the world through the petrodollar?

Biological weapons.

I'd prefer to keep the petrodollar for now until we find a better solution.

a reply to: FamCore

well first off,

The US lost the battleground/mission in Syria because we are not the greatest military, not even close to the greatest military.

my understanding is that we only have 300 ground troops in syria, only 50 are SOF and those were sent by obama. true we have used air strikes, but that is not enough to stop an enemy completely. need boots on the ground and more than 50.

from april of last year

Obama to send 250 more US troops to Syria Obama to send 250 more US troops to Syria 8:09 AM ET Mon, 25 April 2016 | 00:32 President Barack Obama plans to send as many as 250 more U.S. troops to Syria, bringing the total American presence on the ground to 300 to help fight Islamic State militants, U.S. officials said on Sunday.
The decision, which a U.S. official said would be announced in Hanover, Germany, on Monday, was first reported by the Wall Street Journal and confirmed an April 1 Reuters report that the Obama administration was considering a significant increase in U.S. forces. The additional deployment aims to accelerate recent gains against Islamic State and appears to reflect growing confidence in the ability of U.S.-backed forces inside Syria and Iraq to claw back territory from the hardline Sunni Islamist group.

slamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, controls the cities of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria and is proving a potent threat abroad, claiming credit for major attacks in Paris in November and Brussels in March.

While Obama has resisted putting U.S. troops into Syria, where a five-year civil war has killed at least 250,000 people, he sent 50 U.S. special operations forces to Syria last year in what U.S. officials described as a "counterterrorism" mission rather than an effort to tip the scales in the war. Obama on Syria: We have looked at all options
Obama to send up to 250 more US troops to Syria to fight ISIS

a reply to: FamCore

The US has been losing the mission in Syria, because it didn't HAVE a mission in Syria. The extent of planning for Syria was "fly around and bomb them".

Russia and the US have different philosophies on military technology. Russia went for speed with their antiship missiles, the US went for control. The new Harpoon can be retargeted in flight, and change their flight path before getting to the target. Faster missiles are harder to kill, but a low observable missile that can be retargeted will be hard to kill too.

Let me guess, one of the EMP tests was the Donald Cook in the Black Sea, right?

The US has one of the most powerful military forces in the world, but if your battle plan consists of "we're going to bomb them until they're destroyed", you're going to lose every time. Air power alone can not win fights. You need people on the ground to both fight, and target the forces you're fighting for you.

Military force is also more than just "we have lots of tanks and planes". There's a lot of extremely hard to quantify information there. We have a strong global power projection force, but we suck at regional conflicts. We're not set up for them. That's why we're using B-52s and A-10s to blow up trucks and guys setting IEDs, in an area that doesn't even have MANPADS. We should have set up a COIN force and had A-29s, and AT-6s flying around instead.

Omg HE IS selling precious metals!

Hahahah how did I know??
Because it's fear mongering speculation that lacks deeper understanding of what's going on.

This "topic" which covers all other topics in the whole world - is so unbelievably complex and sophisticated that talking about Russian cruise missiles and petrodollars is pretty much a small-minded joke.

We don't even know most of what's really going on.
But with what we can know with basic research and questions, is that the status quo will last a lot longer than people expect. See it's profitable to get everyone worked up and afraid.

But why would the people ruling the world risk obliterating the whole ecosystem?
This is what you need to ask yourself.

They are too busy living it up in extreme luxury and enjoying the fruits of the world.
Meanwhile we pay for their ecstatic adventures by buying things in our simplistic emotionally driven mindsets.

Expect the dollar to stay around (why would they want to sell me silver bullion for my US $$$ if they are so certain these US $$$ are going to "Vanish"?) hahaha because it's your $$$ that will vanish when you give it all to them for some useless metals that no store accepts as currency.

A world war is extremely unlikely to occur as well.
I'd suggest pursuing your dreams, starting businesses, or doing whatever makes you happy.

a reply to: FamCore

I believe ( and as an active duty service member acknowledge my bias) that the only thing holding back our military is public opinion and our belief (rightly or wrongly) that we are morally superior to any given enemy.

If left to our own devices without media being embedded on the battlefields, any engagement would end swiftly and decisively.

In Vietnam we lost the American public's will to continue. (Understandably in my opinion since it was based on a lie and we had no business being there.)

In Iraq and Afghanistan we got saddled with Nation building and "winning hearts and minds" (Again in my opinion we had no business being in Iraq) but if let off our leash so to speak, well you all watched on CNN how quickly we took control of Iraq.

Syria, we were never engaged in combat, so how could we lose a battle we were never in?

But, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and all of this is subjective speculation so taking it as anything more than that is being dishonest.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If the mission in Syria was just to blow up some stuff than clearly they won.
I'm certain they blew up at least something.

a reply to: muzzleflash

That's what it boils down to. Air power isn't going to win. Period. They should have had boots on the ground from Day One if they were serious about the fight in Syria.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FamCore

The US has one of the most powerful military forces in the world, but if your battle plan consists of "we're going to bomb them until they're destroyed", you're going to lose every time. Air power alone can not win fights. You need people on the ground to both fight, and target the forces you're fighting for you.

You only need people on the ground if your objectives require that.
For example you want to seize land or an airport or something and hold it.
Then you'd need ground forces to bunker down in that area and hold the objective.

But if you are merely attempting to create chaos, obliterate their logistics or some type of infrastructure and that's all (just to slow them down significantly), than airpower is more than enough. In fact just cruise missiles could do the trick.

It's all about the objective and how exactly you are expected to achieve it. There are a lot of creative ways to approach each problem, and it's only limited by what hardware you have on hand and the training and thinking ability of those who use it. Oh, and the rules of engagement and all that jazz...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

That's what it boils down to. Air power isn't going to win. Period. They should have had boots on the ground from Day One if they were serious about the fight in Syria.

For what purpose though?
To hold the land and install a new provisional government and all that?
Sure if that's what we wanted.

But if all they wanna do is blow some stuff up and leave it as is, why risk the army or marines?

My fingers and keyboard is wearing out posting this one site :

List of countries by Military Strength Index

Most of what you state was the unwillingness of Obama to do anything.
You are right. You dont know about about the military,(or about policies under the President) By stating that as you did , doesnt that mean you started the thread with ignorance ?
I hope you are better informed now , and I have performed my responsibilities to ATS for the day
Deny Ignorance

I stated this in reply to an older OP on the same topic...

First... I am also not in the military. I did, however, retire after 20+ years in the USAF... so, I do speak from some experience. Combat experience.

Iraq/Afghanistan. Bush wanted oil and mineral rights.

Egypt. Libya. Thanks, Hilary... the gun running was profitable, until lives were lost.

Syria is a side-show that we should never have gotten involved with. Thank you, Mr. Obama.

To U.S. military planners, these are tactical exercises. Live fire demonstrations.

...let that sink in a bit...



I truly fear that, one day our true military resolve will be put to the test. When that day comes, I would NOT want to be in the same hemisphere as the enemy that we lay waste to.

This is not a boast, nor brag. I worked on weapons that were decades ahead of their time, and that was 15 years ago. Simple extrapolation of emergent technologies (which the USAF is about two decades ahead of the rest of the world) and the sheer resolve of the US military-industrial complex... terrifying.

If the Chinese and Russians feel that they have a military advantage, it is because we allowed it. If the Chinese and Russians stole U.S. technology, it is because it was already obsolete... and we allowed it.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You can't blow stuff up by air if there are civilians in the area. Airpower can't win when you're fighting in cities and towns. You need people to call targets, and sometimes you need people to fight. Boots on the ground isn't always to take and hold territory. Sometimes you need them to fight too.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

You can't blow stuff up by air if there are civilians in the area. Airpower can't win when you're fighting in cities and towns. You need people to call targets, and sometimes you need people to fight. Boots on the ground isn't always to take and hold territory. Sometimes you need them to fight too.

You can blow up civilians, it's just immoral and hopefully our military will avoid doing that.
It can be done though and it's easier than avoiding doing it.

If the objective was just to bomb them and ruin their day, air power is fine.

Who taught you this 'boots on the ground' junk science anyways?
Hahaha that was /sarcasm.

a reply to: muzzleflash

You can either blow up civilians, and be crucified, and have pretty much everyone turn against you, or put people on the ground and do it the hard way, building by building. If the objective is to destroy a group, such as ISIS, that means boots on the ground to do it the hard way.