Home » Posts tagged 'war'

Tag Archives: war

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Cataclysm
Click on image to purchase

Putin Warns Attack On Iran Would Be “Catastrophic” As US Navy Deploys To Drone Crash Site

Putin Warns Attack On Iran Would Be “Catastrophic” As US Navy Deploys To Drone Crash Site

Following China’s warning this week that the United States is poised to open “Pandora’s Box” in the Middle East should it escalate military action against Iran, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has weighed in, on Thursday saying any American military strike would have “catastrophic” consequences.

Putin warned further that US attack “would trigger a surge in violence and a possible refugee exodus,” according to Reuters. During an annual televised question and answer session hosted by the Russian leader, he reiterated Moscow’s position that Tehran is in full compliance with its nuclear commitments under the 2015 JCPOA. He also slammed the US-imposed sanctions now choking the Iranian economy as “groundless”.

“I want to say at once that this would be a catastrophe for the region” — Putin said.

Meanwhile, President Trump has been briefed on Thursday morning’s dramatic escalation of an already tense stand-off in the Strait of Hormuz which involved Iran’s alleged shoot down of a US drone near entrance to Persian Gulf.

Reports say it was US Navy high-altitude drone taken out by an Iranian surface-to-air missile directly over Strait of Hormuz in what the US says was international airspace, but which Iran claimed was over its sovereign airspace. US Central Command (CENTCOM) identified the drone as one of its RQ-4 Global Hawk aircraft, condemning it as an “unprovoked attack”.

“Iranian reports that the aircraft was over Iran are false. This was an unprovoked attack on a U.S. surveillance asset in international airspace,” CENTCOM spokesman Navy Capt. Bill Urban said following the confirmed drone downing.

And now, in a pattern suggesting significant US military build-up will continue in the Persian Gulf following last week’s tanker attack incident, also blamed on Iran, US naval assets have been dispatched to the “drone debris field in international waters” according to a breaking Reuters report.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Iran Shoots Down US Drone, Says “Ready For War”

Iran Shoots Down US Drone, Says “Ready For War” 

Tensions between the US and Iran flared on Thursday when the Iranian Revolutionary Guard shot down an American drone that was said to have flown into Iranian airspace (the US claims the drone flew over international territory). The drone was reportedly flying over the Strait of Hormuz – that critical chokepoint for the global oil trade – not far from where two oil tankerswere recently attacked.

drone

“We will defend Iran’s airspace and maritime boundaries with all our might,” Ali Shamkhani, secretary-general for the Supreme National Security Council was quoted as saying by state-run Islamic Students’ News Agency. “It doesn’t matter which country’s aircraft cross our airspace.

IRGC Commander Hossein Salami said shooting down the drone had sent a clear and strong message for the US: Iran’s borders are ‘red lines’ and though Iran doesn’t seek war, Iran is ready for war. The US, meanwhile, denies that the drone crossed into Iran’s airspace, and says it was in international airspace the whole time.

The drone reportedly was shot down over a village called Kuhmobarak in Iran’s Hormozgan province.

Map

The news sent oil prices surging, with Brent up as much as 3%. President Trump has been briefed on the incident and the White House is “monitoring the situation.” The US military has branded the shooting “an unprovoked attack.”

The shooting follows attacks on six tankers in the region, which Iran has denied responsibility for (including the two from last week). On Wednesday, a news agency operated by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen said that the rebels had hit a power station in Jazan, Saudi Arabia, with a cruise missile, though these reports weren’t independently verified.

Numerous geopolitical experts warned that Thursday’s incident “significantly raises” the prospects for international conflict.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

World War III – 2024-2027?

World War III – 2024-2027? 

QUESTION: Besides the Bible, there are many clairvoyants who predict that there will be World War III. Your models predict the rise in war tensions. What is your “opinion” about the prospects for a third world war?

JC

ANSWER: There is no doubt that we are in the process of a rising war cycle. It really appears to be more of a bitter war between leaders once again, as was the case with the last two World Wars. World War I was really about destroying the former Holy Roman Empire which had its seat of power in Vienna. That city was besieged in 1683 when the Ottoman Empire sought to conquer Europe. If you recall, the financial panics I used to discover the Economic Confidence Model began with the Panic of 1683 caused by the invasion of the Ottoman Empire.

The War Cycle is turning up and we are looking at a possible peak as early as 2027. This is why I have been concerned about the economic crisis in 2021-2022. Once the economy turns down, it will be the fuel for the war.

We must also respect that this particular cycle is the combination of both civil and international unrest. I do not believe we are in a cycle of conquest. Nobody wants to conquer and occupy each other — neither China, Russia, nor the USA. So, on the international level, it appears we are dealing with old grudges. When I have asked why Russia is our enemy since they abandoned communism, the only response I get is that, “Well, they are Russian!” World War I unfolded when the Archduke of Austria was assassinated by a Serb. He was heir to the throne of the old Holy Roman Empire. The French hated Germany for they were defeated under Napoleon. Additionally, in the first Treaty of Versailles in 1871 Germany became an empire at the expense of France. So it was really very much about settling old debts.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Oil traders have bigger worries than a new Hormuz tanker war

Oil traders have bigger worries than a new Hormuz tanker war

Oil tankers ablaze in the Gulf of Oman and the US pointing the finger at Iran should be enough to send the price of the world’s most vital commodity skyrocketing.

Instead, oil prices have barely budged. Traders are not buying into the theory that Tehran wants a war, but they are worried about demand.

Dated Brent assessed by S&P Global Platts – the world’s most important oil benchmark – spiked by over 4% following the attacks on June 13 and traded briefly just above $62/b. On the face of it, this modest rise doesn’t reflect the risk to almost a fifth of the world’s oil shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow 21-mile-wide channel separating Iran from the Arabian Peninsula.

“I see the limited reaction in the crude oil market as an indication of traders saying ‘hang on a minute’,” said Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank. “If Iran did this it would be an open invitation to the US to step up its involvement and that should have sent the price much higher.”

Supporting Hansen’s point, crude had futures tumbled earlier in the week, with Brent falling below $60/b for the first time since late January, after data showed a larger-than-expected increase in US crude oil inventories.

Demand-side worries

The combination of rising stockpiles, tepid demand growth and fears of a slowing global economy has been enough to wipe $13 off the value of a barrel of Brent crude since May, despite the recent attacks on oil shipping and infrastructure in the Middle East.

Last week’s attacks were described by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as “an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension by Iran”.

Infographic on June 13 tanker attack near strait of Hormuz

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Waiting For The Black Swan

Waiting For The Black Swan

War with Iran would be the beginning of the end

Two more tankers were attacked near the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday morning  (6/13/19) in the Gulf of Oman, and if hostilities advance we could be facing a ‘black swan’ event. One that changes everything, and divides the world into ‘before’ and ‘after’ periods.

A lot of us are waiting for ‘something’ to happen. We know that there are too many unsustainable trends and practices running and we fall into the “let’s just rip the Band-Aid off” camp.   Some, like myself, have lost faith in the political leadership and institutions and doubt they retain any capacity to attend to anything more than their own selfish interests, let alone manage the difficult tasks ahead rooted as they are in systems theory and managing complexity.

So, let’s get on with it already.  Bring it on.  Black swans are welcome to those who feel a swift kick to the behind is sometimes needed to begin setting things straight.

Like many, I am also conflicted because I also know that getting onto a new path will be disruptive and probably quite economically and financially painful for everyone, myself included.  Hoping for ‘something to break’ and hoping nothing breaks hang in an uneasy balance.

Luckily, my hopes and wishes have nothing to do with what’s going to happen, or when.  I might as well be performing a secret hand ritual before the TV in my living room to ensure that my team’s basketball free-throw goes in.  The dry tinder of the next bonfire was laid down over many years and decades and it will catch fire when it does, no matter how much denial or how many superstitious practices we employ.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Pentagon Readies “Contingency Plans” For Potential Escalation Against Iran

Pentagon Readies “Contingency Plans” For Potential Escalation Against Iran

Amid fears that the US is running headlong into yet another sure to be disastrous war in the Middle East, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told reporters Friday that the Pentagon is prepping “contingency plans” should things quickly escalate militarily.

“When you look at the situation… 15 percent of the world’s oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz,” Shanahan said as quoted in The Washington Times. “So we obviously need to make contingency plans should the situation deteriorate. We also need to broaden our support for this international situation.”

The Pentagon indicated it’s further implementing plans to coordinate with America’s international allies in the event of military confrontation with Iran — something which could prove difficult given the European Union has urged “maximum restraint” following Thursday’s tanker attacks incident Washington quickly blamed on Iran. The UK has been the only exception, which immediately stood behind Pompeo and Trump’s assessment. 

Oil Market `Less Concerned’ With Iran Actions, Says U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary

Notably, as The Washington Times reports further of Friday’s press briefing, “the Pentagon is planning for the possible deployment of additional U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf region in the event the threat from Iran worsens.”

Weeks ago as tensions began soaring in the region following John Bolton’s claimed intelligence of a “heightened threat” of Iran or its allies attacking nearby US troops, the Pentagon deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, at least 1500 extra troops, as well as B-52 bombers, drones, and patriot missile batteries. 

Likely the Pentagon will use the tanker incident to keep up the pressure on Tehran: “The more information that we can declassify, the more information we can share, we will. And that’s our intent. And I think as you saw yesterday — doing it quickly,” Shanahan continued in his statement. 

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

False Flag intro to World War 3 tanker attacks

False Flag intro to World War 3 tanker attacks

Global Intel Hub – (London, UK 6/13/2019) — Most wars in the past 100 years have been started with a ‘spark’ which might be assassination, attacking of a ship, or bombing of Pearl Harbor.  As we explain in Splitting Pennies the world is not as it seems.

We’re not saying that this attack is a false flag – we are saying that all these attacks seem to fit the same profile.  And we’re not the only ones with this reaction, as other sites banned by Facebook have chimed in as well:

Honestly, Iran deciding to attack two “Japan-related” tankers while the Japanese head of state is in their country would push the Iranian government straight through “stupid” and out the other side into “suicidally insane”. That said, if it is a “false flag” – by the US or anyone else – it’s so blatant as to be borderline useless. Are the Deep State operatives of the US/UK/Israel or whoever, really that stupid?

As reported here on Zero Hedge:

Update 7: Ahead of comments to the UN Security Council (which will presumably block any action, with China and Russia backing Iran), unnamed officials are sharing with reporters some of what the US intends to say:

U.S. OFFICIALS ALLEGE IRANIAN ATTACK MEANT TO ESCALATE CONFLICT
OFFICIALS: ATTACK SHOWS IRAN UNINTERESTED IN DIALOGUE WITH U.S.
OFFICIALS: OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION INCLUDE TANKER ESCORTS
Earlier, the Saudis presented a letter to the council claiming that the Iran-backed Houthis had obtained special weapons training and were responsible for Wednesday’s attack on Abha airport.

Pompeo said earlier that the US was in possession of “intelligence” suggesting Iran is behind the attack…but he neglected to offer any poof.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

What Comes After Trump – World War III?

What Comes After Trump – World War III? 

Those who are familiar with my articles would be aware that I am not given to catastrophism or alarmism. But perhaps the time has come to reflect on who will be president after Trump (whether after this or the next term) and what this will mean for relations with Russia and China.

What will the United States’ relations with Russia and China be like when the 46th president of the United States takes office in 2025? This is a question that I often ask myself, especially in light of Trump’s political choices regarding international arms-control treaties (INF Treaty), nuclear proliferation, economic war with China, a financial crisis that is artificially postponed thanks to QE, out-of-control military spending, an increasingly aggressive NATO stance towards the Russian Federation, and continuous provocations against the People’s Republic of China. Where will we end up with after another five years of provocations? For how much longer will Putin and Xi Jinping maintain the “strategic patience” not to respond to Washington with drastic measures?

Let us imagine we are in 2025

The four current global hot spots – Iran, Syria, Venezuela and DPRK – have maintained their resistance to Washington’s diktats and have emerged more or less victorious. Syrian territory in its entirety is now under the control of Damascus; Iran has established enough deterrents not to be attacked; Pyongyang continues in its negotiations with Washington as the reunification of the two Koreas continues along; the Bolivarian revolution still lives on in Venezuela.

Putin is preparing to leave the Russian Federation as president after 25 years. Xi Jinping could see his mandate expire in a few more years. Washington is about to appoint a new president, who in all probability will be the opposite of Trump, in the same way Obama was the opposite of Bush and Trump a reaction to Obama.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

US Troops To Be Based In Saudi Arabia, Qatar Against “Iran Threat”

US Troops To Be Based In Saudi Arabia, Qatar Against “Iran Threat” 

Just hours after US National Security Advisor John Bolton formally accused Tehran of conducing the May 12 tanker “sabotage” attacks near the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s foreign ministry has responded that “we are ready for war” amid fears that Washington could still be on a war footing in the Persian Gulf. 

“We hope that we can start a dialogue, but we are ready for war,” Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told  RIA Novosti. 

Bolton had told a press conference earlier in the day in Dubai, “The point is to make it very clear to Iran and its surrogates that these kinds of actions risk a very strong response from the United States.”AP file photo of US troops in Saudi Arabia during 1990 Gulf War. 

Bolton is in Abu Dhabi attending an emergency summit of gulf leaders to consider the implications of both the “sabotage” tanker attacks near Fujairah emiriate in the UAE and the drone strikes two days following on a Saudi Aramco pipeline and oil pumping station. 

Meanwhile acting U.S. Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told reporters while in Asia for a major policy speech on the region, “nobody wants war” with Iran. However, he added that the US is ready and willing to “defend ships in the Strait of Hormuz” if necessary. 

Also of note is that Shanahan for the first time identified that 900 American troops newly deployed to the Middle East in response to the heightened Iran threat are headed to Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Is the US on the cusp of war in Iran?

Is the US on the cusp of war in Iran?

Is the US on the cusp of war in Iran?

March 19th 2003, US forces in coalition with the United Kingdom and others initiate war on Iraq in a conquest to overthrow the ruthless dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. During this time President George W. Bush famously announced, “At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” 

The Bush administration had built practically one hundred per cent of their case for war on the premise that Saddam Hussein was keeping “weapons of mass destruction” and was ready to use them. But soon after, it became imminent that the origins of these claims were baseless. 

Operation Iraqi Freedom

Soon after the initial invasion of Baghdad, dubbed operation Iraqi freedom by western politicians, coalition forces were able to swiftly topple Hussein’s regime and capture Iraq’s major cities in the span of just 3 weeks whilst sustaining only minor casualties. At this stage, all seemed well after President Bush declared the end of major combat operations on May 1st 2003. 

But Despite this victory, instead of immediately pulling US troops out of Iraq, Bush attempted something that up until then was anathema to Republicans- nation building. Hence the word freedomin its name. Most Americans at this time recognised that the US had stabilized the middle east and would then ensure a peaceful transition to a new democratically elected government and free society. 

But this would end in unequivocal failure after a growing insurgency prolonged 8 years of intense guerrilla warfare, which according to the BBC resulted in 4487 US personnel killed, over 100,000 Iraqui civilian deaths and US financial costs projected anywhere between $802 billion all the way to possibly as high as $3 trillion when additional impacts on the US budget and economy are considered.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The Indictment of Julian Assange Under the Espionage Act Is a Threat to the Press and the American People

The Indictment of Julian Assange Under the Espionage Act Is a Threat to the Press and the American People

LONDON, ENGLAND - AUGUST 20:  Placards are left by supporters of Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks whistle-blowing website, outside the Ecuadorian Embassy where Mr Assange has been living since June on August 20, 2012 in London, England. Several South American nations have declared their support for Ecuador's decision to grant asylum to Mr Assange whilst he faces extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault.  (Photo by Oli Scarff/Getty Images)

Placards left by supporters of Julian Assange outside the Ecuadorian Embassy on Aug. 20, 2012 in London, England.

Photo: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

A TRUE DEMOCRACY does not allow its government to decide who is a journalist. A nation in which a leader gets to make that decision is on the road to dictatorship.

That is why the new U.S. indictment of Julian Assange is so dangerous to liberty in America.

The Trump administration has charged Assange under the Espionage Act for conspiring to leak classified documents. The indictment, released yesterday, focuses on his alleged efforts to encourage former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak classified documents to him and WikiLeaks about a decade ago.

Many of those documents, including U.S. military reports and State Department cables, were later published by WikiLeaks, but they were also the basis of reporting by major news organizations like the New York Times and The Guardian, which published some of them. The Manning leaks helped reveal long-hidden truths about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the post-9/11 global war on terror. Among the most striking leaks were a classified video of U.S. military attack helicopters killing a dozen people, including two Reuters staffers, in Baghdad in 2007, as well as the more than 250,000 State Department cables, which continue to be an important reference for reporters and researchers studying U.S. foreign policy.

The Manning documents also turned WikiLeaks into a strange new player in the modern journalistic ecosystem. WikiLeaks would obtain materials from sources inside governments and other organizations and then disseminate them, either by publishing them itself or by sharing them with major news organizations. WikiLeaks served as an intermediary between sources and reporters.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

War is War on Mother Earth

War is War on Mother Earth

Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair

“In order to achieve the massive systemic and cultural transformations required for mitigating climate change…we’re going to have to deal with the socially sanctioned, institutionalized violence perpetrated by U.S. foreign policy that is pouring fuel on the fire of global warming.”

– Stacy Bannerman

Climate Change Causes War 

There is the close relationship between war and climate change that can be seen in a cycle of feedback loops creating the interlocking crisis.

Take the case of Syria, the perfect example with its direct relationship between war and drought. In an exacting statistical analysis of warsfought between 1980 and 2010 the connection between war and climate change is undeniable.

The US military itself has long recognized climate change as a “threat multiplier.” The last three Pentagon Quadrennial Defense Reviewscharacterized climate change as a threat to national security.[1]

Since the idea of climate change as “threat multiplier” tends to encourage militarized responses, (like Elizabeth Warren’s recent proposals) this information is widely reported in the pro-war media and I will not repeat it here. The military and their media allies fall silent when it comes to a far more important truth: war causes climate change.

War Causes Climate Chaos

At the core of the corporate state is the war machine, the world’s largest polluter. Despite the exemptions from reporting on military pollution that the US demanded in the 1997 Kyoto Accords and continued suppression of information by the military, the general picture comes through. Consider the evidence linking fossil fuels and war making.

+ The US military is the world’s largest polluters of all forms of toxins. Almost 900 of the nearly 1,200 Superfund sitesin the U.S. are abandoned military facilities or sites that otherwise supported military needs.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The road to modern wars

The road to modern wars 

President Trump pursues a policy combining military threat with economic warfare and his aim is to restore American hegemony especially in view of the rising contender: China. Beijing has been acquiring technological knowledge and started expanding beyond the borders, having easier access to Central Asia and the Pacific than Americans.

In 2015, when Trump stood for election, we wrote: “Trump’s war rhetoric is very popular with his audiences and is a step beyond Obama’s statement about American exceptionalism. In New Hampshire, Trump nearly declared war on China as he stated: ‘Take a look at China what they have done, they have taken our money, our jobs, our base, our manufacturing, and we owe them 1.5 trillion dollars that’s like a magic act, they have taken everything, and we owe them money.’ Mr Trump did not tell his audience that bringing back jobs comes at a cost. China’s GDP per capita is around 7,500 dollars, while the GDP per capita of the US is about 55,000 dollars. The China rhetoric is unambiguous; China stole what belongs to the US, and there is no need to repay US debt owed to China. The world should brace for Mr Trump as the 45th president of the USA.

President Trump wants to dictate to the whole world, but, taking into account the fact that the United States is now in conflict with Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Russia, China and North Korea, a big war is not to be expected any time soon, so much so that the military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and Libya appear to be inconclusive. Washington has an arsenal of other measures and these include:

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The Most Dangerous Place on Earth

The Most Dangerous Place on Earth

A nuclear Armageddon in the making in South Asia

Undoubtedly, for nearly two decades the most dangerous place on Earth has been the Indian-Pakistani border in Kashmir. It’s possible that a small spark from artillery and rocket exchanges across that border might — given the known military doctrines of the two nuclear-armed neighbors — lead inexorably to an all-out nuclear conflagration. In that case the result would be catastrophic. Besides causing the deaths of millions of Indians and Pakistanis, such a war might bring on “nuclear winter” on a planetary scale, leading to levels of suffering and death that would be beyond our comprehension.

Alarmingly, the nuclear competition between India and Pakistan has now entered a spine-chilling phase. That danger stems from Islamabad’s decision to deploy low-yield tactical nuclear arms at its forward operating military bases along its entire frontier with India to deter possible aggression by tank-led invading forces. Most ominously, the decision to fire such a nuclear-armed missile with a range of 35 to 60 miles is to rest with local commanders. This is a perilous departure from the universal practice of investing such authority in the highest official of the nation. Such a situation has no parallel in the Washington-Moscow nuclear arms race of the Cold War era.

wib mushroom small

When it comes to Pakistan’s strategic nuclear weapons, their parts are stored in different locations to be assembled only upon an order from the country’s leader. By contrast, tactical nukes are pre-assembled at a nuclear facility and shipped to a forward base for instant use. In addition to the perils inherent in this policy, such weapons would be vulnerable to misuse by a rogue base commander or theft by one of the many militant groups in the country.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

UN Arms Chief Says Nuclear War is Closer Than Ever Since WW2

UN ARMS CHIEF SAYS NUCLEAR WAR IS CLOSER THAN EVER SINCE WW2

A United Nations arms official has declared nuclear war to be closer than it has ever been since World War II. The geopolitical climate is so divisive and disturbing right now, that globalists are actually telling us a nuclear war could be coming.

The head of the United Nations’ Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) Director Renata Dwan said in an interview that the use of nuclear weapons is more likely today than any time since the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945, adding that the use of such weapons today carried a greater risk than ever, according to Reuters. 

“I think that it’s genuinely a call to recognize — and this has been somewhat missing in the media coverage of the issues — that the risks of nuclear war are particularly high now, and the risks of the use of nuclear weapons, for some of the factors I pointed out, are higher now than at any time since World War II,” she told the news service, speaking about a call from 122 nations to ban such weapons entirely. Dawn says that the UN should be doing more to ban nuclear weapons. “How we think about that, and how we act on that risk and the management of that risk, seems to me a pretty significant and urgent question that isn’t reflected fully in the (U.N.) Security Council,” she told Reuters according to The Hill.

Of course, a ban only works if countries are going to obey. Should nations defy a UN nuclear weapons ban, there is literally nothing the UN can do about it. There are far too many nukes out there for the UN’s words to matter.

 …click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Olduvai IV: Courage
In progress...

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Cataclysm
Click on image to purchase