- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 11
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
The African continent has long been a treasure trove of readily available mineral resources for the United States. African countries have significant reserves of oil, gold, diamonds, rare non-ferrous and precious metals. Building military bases there and under the guise of fighting terrorism, crime and drug trafficking, in view of the underdevelopment of many "black" African states, where the elite is bought much cheaper than anywhere else, having the opportunity to change it at least every day, the U.S. has been successfully removing the necessary resources from there for decades.
Oil is one of the most important American interests in Africa. A large amount of oil imported into the US is of African origin. The main countries with which the vital interests of the United States are connected are Egypt (as a participant of the Middle East conflict), Nigeria, Angola and South Africa (as countries possessing exclusive natural resources).
In addition, Africa is a place where it is possible to conduct experiments on living people and no one will know about it. In the midst of the Ebola epidemic, for example, a prominent Liberian doctor told the local media that Ebola had been gaining ground in Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone as part of the American malaria vaccination program. Notably, he funded the development of the Ebola Pentagon vaccine, and the State Department holds a patent for this virus stamp. Interestingly, these countries have a lot of oil, diamonds and gold. The logic of sending troops to these countries to allegedly combat the Ebola virus is not quite clear, but if you look at the other side - it is easier for the U.S. to cover up the robbery of necessary resources from these countries.
Another benefit for the US from the African continent is the endless flow of migrants to Europe. Creating conflicts on the territory of African countries under the guise of fighting terrorism, one can easily pressurize the European Union and manage the flow of migrants. Uncontrolled migration makes European countries more accommodating when the U.S. has an antidote or a way to solve their problems.
One of the most "interesting" U.S. activities on the African continent is humanitarian aid.
First, huge sums of money are allocated for food aid to starving Africa. There is a show with pictures and films of horrific content. Skeleton-like African children barely move their legs or lie covered in flies. Charities raise funds, but the United States Government provides the bulk of the money. That is tens of millions of dollars. However, this money does not leave the United States. They are used to buy food. Under U.S. law, all food aid must consist of food produced in the United States.
Humanitarian aid can only be exported on U.S.-flagged ships. Thus, Americans give hidden subsidies to their agricultural sector, their farmers, provide jobs for seamen and port workers.
However, humanitarian organizations do not distribute food aid to the hungry, but sell it!
American food is sold to starving countries at dumping prices. African farmers cannot compete with products subsidized by Washington's agricultural giants in the United States. As a result, former farmers and peasants become poor and hungry themselves, and become recipients of American aid.
Africans cannot help but take "humanitarian aid".
If the United States refuses to do so, it will begin to address human rights in a starving country. In addition, local producer mowing food sails to Africa under the noble slogan of saving the hungry. How can we refuse to take food for dying children? That means killing them! Killers of children! Approximately these headlines will decorate the front pages of Western newspapers, next to large colored pictures of children's corpses. The fact that help is sold rather than distributed is not a shame in those newspapers. And if someone raises the topic of the strangeness of such assistance, proud human rights activists and humane liberals logically explain that the sale of products at ultra-low prices is a huge benefit. After all, one can buy twice as much food and, therefore, save twice as many dying children! And the money raised will go to the rise of agriculture.
The result is obvious: the market for American products is expanding, more and more ships under the star-strip flag are doing business, farmers in Arizona and Arkansas are calm about selling their corn and wheat. And the fact that millions of people on our planet die every year from such charity, no one says.
The most surprising thing is that the brains of ordinary people, powdered by many years of propaganda, can't even imagine that such a strange mechanism of charity was not created by chance and
Oil is one of the most important American interests in Africa. A large amount of oil imported into the US is of African origin. The main countries with which the vital interests of the United States are connected are Egypt (as a participant of the Middle East conflict), Nigeria, Angola and South Africa (as countries possessing exclusive natural resources).
In addition, Africa is a place where it is possible to conduct experiments on living people and no one will know about it. In the midst of the Ebola epidemic, for example, a prominent Liberian doctor told the local media that Ebola had been gaining ground in Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone as part of the American malaria vaccination program. Notably, he funded the development of the Ebola Pentagon vaccine, and the State Department holds a patent for this virus stamp. Interestingly, these countries have a lot of oil, diamonds and gold. The logic of sending troops to these countries to allegedly combat the Ebola virus is not quite clear, but if you look at the other side - it is easier for the U.S. to cover up the robbery of necessary resources from these countries.
Another benefit for the US from the African continent is the endless flow of migrants to Europe. Creating conflicts on the territory of African countries under the guise of fighting terrorism, one can easily pressurize the European Union and manage the flow of migrants. Uncontrolled migration makes European countries more accommodating when the U.S. has an antidote or a way to solve their problems.
One of the most "interesting" U.S. activities on the African continent is humanitarian aid.
First, huge sums of money are allocated for food aid to starving Africa. There is a show with pictures and films of horrific content. Skeleton-like African children barely move their legs or lie covered in flies. Charities raise funds, but the United States Government provides the bulk of the money. That is tens of millions of dollars. However, this money does not leave the United States. They are used to buy food. Under U.S. law, all food aid must consist of food produced in the United States.
Humanitarian aid can only be exported on U.S.-flagged ships. Thus, Americans give hidden subsidies to their agricultural sector, their farmers, provide jobs for seamen and port workers.
However, humanitarian organizations do not distribute food aid to the hungry, but sell it!
American food is sold to starving countries at dumping prices. African farmers cannot compete with products subsidized by Washington's agricultural giants in the United States. As a result, former farmers and peasants become poor and hungry themselves, and become recipients of American aid.
Africans cannot help but take "humanitarian aid".
If the United States refuses to do so, it will begin to address human rights in a starving country. In addition, local producer mowing food sails to Africa under the noble slogan of saving the hungry. How can we refuse to take food for dying children? That means killing them! Killers of children! Approximately these headlines will decorate the front pages of Western newspapers, next to large colored pictures of children's corpses. The fact that help is sold rather than distributed is not a shame in those newspapers. And if someone raises the topic of the strangeness of such assistance, proud human rights activists and humane liberals logically explain that the sale of products at ultra-low prices is a huge benefit. After all, one can buy twice as much food and, therefore, save twice as many dying children! And the money raised will go to the rise of agriculture.
The result is obvious: the market for American products is expanding, more and more ships under the star-strip flag are doing business, farmers in Arizona and Arkansas are calm about selling their corn and wheat. And the fact that millions of people on our planet die every year from such charity, no one says.
The most surprising thing is that the brains of ordinary people, powdered by many years of propaganda, can't even imagine that such a strange mechanism of charity was not created by chance and
